To: | "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | Kathryn Blackmond Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxx> |
Date: | Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:18:13 -0500 |
Message-id: | <p06110464c3824c4d2f30@[42.170.194.70]> |
For the record, I do not mean to subscribe to the opinion that
the storytelling is a meaningless game. I was stating it as an
attitude some people might adopt. As I understand it, that was Bohr's
attitude -- he thought it meaningless to pursue an ontology for
quantum theory because he thought it was unknowable.
Indeed, in the following paragraph I explicitly contrasted this
attitude with exactly the attitude John puts forward -- it's good to
have a diversity of stories because they influence the experiments.
But the stories must agree with the math.
John, thanks for stating it more succinctly.
Along these lines, Pat mentioned Henry Stapp and his quantum
ontology in which conscious agents cause (some, but not necessarily
all) collapses. Pat finds Henry utterly unconvincing. I find
Henry's ontology intriguing, and give it as much a chance of being
right as any ontology out there. I personally find it more
congenial than the transactional interpretation, primarily because in
Stapp's interpretation efficacious conscious choice is a real aspect
of the physical world, and has an explicit role in the mathematics of
quantum theory. According to Stapp, my experience of myself as
an agent making choices that have effects on the physical world is
accurate. There is an explicit place in the mathematics of quantum
theory for "decide and act." On the other hand, I
can't wrap my mind around retarded waves retarded and advanced waves
doing handshakes.
But that's just dueling stories. The proof is in
experimental confirmation.
Efstraos Manousakis claims to have found support for Stapp's
theory in experiments he conducted on switching times in binocular
rivalry experiments. These are experiments in which different images
are presented to the right and left eye and subjects report their
perceptions. A draft of Manousakis' paper is posted on arxiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.4516. Henry Stapp has been working out
the mathematics of a theory of binocular rivalry intended to explain
Manousakis' results:
http://sts.lbl.gov/~stapp/QNeuroscience.pdf
Whether or not this particular theory of binocular rivalry pans
out, and whether or not it ultimately is considered to lend support to
Stapp's ontology, it illustrates quite well what John is talking
about. People who are partial to a particular "story"
try to develop empirical predictions that distinguish their
"story" from others, and test those predictions in
experiments. That's how science progresses.
Kathy
At 7:22 PM -0500 12/9/07, John F. Sowa wrote:
Paola, Antoinette, and Kathy, _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01) |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is this a question?), John F. Sowa |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is this a question?), Kathryn Blackmond Laskey |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is this a question?), John F. Sowa |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is this a question?), Kathryn Blackmond Laskey |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |