[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@xxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:35:18 +0700
Message-id: <c09b00eb0712150035t1a1914acn8524c791b6f17a8e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Pat -

I am working on a deadline so can only pay cursory attention however - I find many points you mention worthy
of digging deeper for learning purposes, considering you may have some knowledge there

 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

And  what does it  say exactly?

or better, what do you make of it?

That is, what  'laws' and principles do we infer from QED and what impact/implications does the scientific
theory of QED have on the rest of the scientific body of knowledge?

To repeat: there is
(so far) one theory of QED, but many

Correct me if I am wrong: you are saying here that there is no such thing as 'quantum logic', but only 'quantum mathematics'?

please elaborate

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.


>On Dec 9, 2007 8:31 AM, Christopher Menzel
><<mailto:cmenzel@xxxxxxxx> cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
>On Dec 7, 2007, at 6:59 AM,
><mailto:paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx >paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
>>  ...
>  >
>< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation
>>  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:
>< http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>< http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>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
><http://www.mfu.ac.th> www.mfu.ac.th
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

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    (01)

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