Apparently we have an institutional subcription to Scientific American, and
even though I have a personal paper subscription, I don't have a digital
subscription. (01)
However, the main points of his article can be found in his Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy page: (02)
Quantum Field Theory. Meinard Kuhlmann in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Winter 2012.
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/quantum-field-theory. (03)
He tends to a dispositional trope ontology for quantum field theory. (04)
Thanks,
Leo (05)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
>Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 8:51 AM
>To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Scientific American: What is Real? Ontology,
>Physics, Metaphysics
>
>Leo,
>
>That is an important question, which Kant raised two centuries ago.
>Peirce answered it one century ago, and Whitehead provided the best
>available foundation for an ontology that is compatible with what we
>think we know and with the many wonders that physicists discovered.
>
>Leo
>> A very interesting article by Meinard Kuhlmann this month: "What is
>> Real?" Intersection of physics and metaphysics, with of course ontology
>> along for the defining ride. You may or may not be able to access it at:
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=physicists-debate-
>whether-world-made-of-particles-fields-or-something-else.
>
>I subscribe to the paper version, but this pointer only links to a short
>excerpt for nonsubscribers. In any case, the following quotation is
>a good summary of the issues:
>
>Meinard K.
>> Many physicists think that particles are not things at all but
>> excitations in a quantum field, the modern successor of classical
>> fields such as the magnetic field. But fields, too, are paradoxical.
>>
>> If neither particles nor fields are fundamental, then what is?
>
>Kant claimed that the only things we can know are the phenomena
>that are revealed through our sense organs. He called whatever
>"reality" lies beneath those phenomena the *noumena*, which are
>forever unknowable.
>
>Kant understood Newtonian mechanics, he taught it at Königsberg,
>and he even made some important contributions. Kant realized that
>a rotating sphere of gas and dust would be unstable. Therefore,
>he proposed the hypothesis that such a sphere would collapse
>into a rotating disk with a large lump in the middle and smaller
>lumps revolvting around it -- i.e., the solar system.
>
>A century later, science advanced quite a bit, and Peirce was
>in the forefront of that research. Among other things, he was
>the director of the Harvard observatory, and the only book he
>published in his lifetime was based on his observations there.
>
>He was also the first American to be invited to an international
>congress in Europe -- and that was for his R & D on very precise
>methods for measuring gravity. He also proposed a research
>project to determine whether the universe was non-Euclidean,
>but he didn't get the funding.
>
>Peirce maintained that what we perceive are signs and patterns
>of signs. By an iterative process of perception, interpretation,
>testing, and action, we construct patterns of signs in our minds
>that constitute everything we know about the world, everything
>in it, and all their possible interactions.
>
>Peirce was a realist in maintaining that most of what we think we
>know is actually true. But he was a fallible realist in recognizing
>that any particular fact we believe might turn out to be only an
>approximation.
>
>His answer to Kant is that there is nothing in reality that is,
>in principle, unknowable. His experience in experimental physics
>and astronomy convinced him that any underlying "reality" that
>is causally connected with the observable phenomena could be
>detected by some method.
>
>As an example of Peirce's engineering skills, he was the first person
>to propose the use of a wavelength of light as a standard for length.
>And he actually designed and built the equipment to *use* a wavelength
>of light to measure the length of the pendulums he used to measure
>gravity.
>
>In short, Peirce was aware of many more levels of "reality" than
>Kant had suspected. He believed that there might be many more
>levels yet to be discovered. But he maintained that every level
>was just as real as any other, all the levels could be "known"
>by patterns of patterns based on perception aided with various
>kinds of instruments.
>
>But he also maintained Popper's principle of falsifiability long
>before Popper: Any scientific hypothesis must be stated with
>enough precision to be falsifiable, and it must be tested by
>checking its predictions against experimental evidence. Any
>hypothesis that repeatedly makes correct predictions is evidence
>that it says something true about some level of reality.
>
>Like Kant, Whitehead taught mathematical physics. He knew
>relativity very well, and he was aware of the new developments
>in quantum mechanics. In his magnum opus _Process and Reality_,
>he proposed a process ontology that is compatible with both.
>
>A lot more detail is required, but Whitehead's process view is
>still the best foundation for ontology: Process is fundamental.
>What we call "things" are slow-moving processes. In ANW's terms,
>physical objects that are sufficiently stable that we can recognize
>them at repeated occurrences are "permanences amidst the flux".
>
>The metaphysical principles of Peirce and Whitehead are completely
>compatible with everything in the article by Meinard Kuhlmann.
>
>Summary: Process is fundamental. We interpret what we perceive
>in terms of signs. We make predictions that we test by action.
>Things are slowly moving processes that we can recognize and
>test on repeated occasions.
>
>All processes we see are based on other processes that we can only
>detect by finer and finer instruments. We have no way of knowing
>how many levels of processes are beneath what we see, but nothing
>that is causally related to what we perceive is unknowable.
>
>John
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (07)
|