Re: Physicists Disagree Over *Meaning* ! (interesting links)

On 19 Feb 2013, at 14:12, JAG wrote:

> Physicists Disagree Over *Meaning* of Quantum Mechanics, (Poll Shows)
>
> http://www.livescience.com/26444-quantum-mechanics-physicists- 
> poll.html
>
> A Snapshot of Foundational *Attitudes* Toward Quantum Mechanics
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069
>
> Can we see now, why EVERYTHING depends on attitude/meaning/ 
> justification/explanation?
>
> Can we see now that we can NOT have an *objective* SCIENCE since all  
> method amd measurements are done and evaluated by *subjective*  
> processes/experiences (in short, by ourselves)?
>
The fact that science, in his working, use subjective experiences, is  
not an argument against objective (refutable, doubtable) theories. We  
have just to make clear of assumptions, rules of reasoning, and  
observation criteria.




>
> Can we see and recognize now the need for a *complementary* theory/ 
> science? is it possible?
>
We have already tried this, and this led to the kind of non sense you  
can find in the institutionalized religions fairy tales, authoritative  
arguments, idolatry, arbitrariness, etc.).

On the contrary, we must bring back theology and metaphysics in  
science. That is: bring back doubt and modesty on the fundamental  
questions (mind-body problem, afterlife, etc.).

Bruno


>
> what are the implictions of such theory/endeavor?
>
> ;)
>
> 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]