[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is th

To: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:29:09 -0600
Message-id: <p06230906c385d61adbe9@[]>
>I was actually thinking the other way around: 
>we choose the science (method of inquiry) that 
>supports our worldview so that we can claim that 
>what we say is 'scientific', and refute that 
>other methods of inquiry leading to different 
>worldviews are scientific. But luckily I am not 
>the only one who has a problem with Popper's 
>falsification methods ....
>    (01)

Apparently the point of my comment about QT has 
not quite got through. There is only one actual 
scientific theory of quantum theory (actually 
quantum electrodynamics, aka QED). That theory is 
embodied in the mathematical equations from which 
the empirically validated predictions can be 
derived. We are not free to pick and choose as we 
like there. However, that theory does not mention 
the mind-bending 'quantum paradoxes' so beloved 
by the semi-popular books: things like 
Schroedinger's cat, the idea of superposition of 
quantum states, and the collapse of the 
wave-function. These are part of something that 
is not itself a theory so much as an attempt to 
make intuitive sense of the actual theory with an 
overarching story that can be used to help guide 
intuition when trying to account for the 
predictions of the theory. What is usually called 
an 'interpretation' of QED. To repeat: there is 
(so far) one theory of QED, but many 
interpretations. The oldest one, which has found 
its way into many written works, is the 
Copenhagen interpretation. For many years it was 
the only one, so came to be identified with QED: 
but now there are others. And some of these 
others do not mention state superposition and 
quantum wave-function collapse. So, to return for 
a second to psychology: any account of, say, 
consciousness, which uses the collapse of the 
wave function as part of its explanatory 
apparatus (as Stapp's does) is not based on QED, 
the actual science, but only on the Copenhagen 
interpretation of QED, which isn't really 
anything more scientific than a parable.    (02)

Pat    (03)

>On Dec 9, 2007 8:31 AM, Christopher Menzel 
>On Dec 7, 2007, at 6:59 AM, 
>>  ...
>  > 
>>  In this account, there is no 'collapse', so its a hard stretch to
>>  posit that consciousness causes or results from it.
>>  luckily we can all have our favourite choice of science to justify
>>  our views of the world
>So, let's see, we have our worldview and then we choose the science
>that fits.  Great!  I choose Young Earth Creationism.  Man, that was
>Message Archives: 
>Shared Files: <http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: <http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/> http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post: 
>Paola Di Maio
>School of IT
>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
>    (04)

IHMC            (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.    (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                       (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                        (850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes    (05)

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    (06)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>