Re: Physicists Disagree Over *Meaning* ! ( what Progress is all about)?

On 21/02/2013, at 6:36, "JAG" <jaguarnight2012-/[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> 
> --- In [email protected], Brett Hall wrote:
> >
> > On 20/02/2013, at 7:21, "JAG" wrote:
> > 
> > > Physicists Disagree Over *Meaning* of Quantum Mechanics, (Poll Shows)
> > > 
> > > http://www.livescience.com/26444-quantum-mechanics-physicists-poll.html
> > > 
> > Do you think that scientific matters should be adjudicated by voting? What if we took a vote about, say, the evolution of life? Holding such a poll, in some places, would make the Earth 6000 years old. Should we vote on the efficacy of homeopathic remedies? Some doctors may then be required to prescribe them.
> 
> Voting and polls can only tell us what people think/beleive about something, in any given time, and in this case, this voting had to do about the meaning of QM. Simple as that but yes, it can get more complicated.
> 

That seems to be what has happened, ok. So, again, do you think that scientific matters should be adjudicated by voting? It's a yes/no answer.
> 
> > > 
> > > 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)?
> > > 
> > Do you distinguish between the epistemological objective/subjective distinction and the ontological one?
> > 
> > Science is about objects, for the most part. There doesn't seem to be much subjective science.
> 
> It is true in this 'conditional' and exclusive sense.
> but, the Universe is made of Energy.
> 

I do not know what that means, really. There are things in the universe that are not "made of" energy. For example, values.
> Objects are just one of the 'forms' of energy. Human beings are *sentient* beings, with Consciousness, beliefs,
> 
Do you think one can have beliefs without consciousness?
> values, spirituality and the need to KNOW and BELIEVE in something
> 
Do you think to "know" is different to "believe"? If so, how?
> , thus the need for meaning...
> and then, we do need to have tangible results....
> 

I get the impression, and I may be wrong, that you think science and rationality are far more narrow spheres of human endeavour than they are.

> 
> Thus, an all-inclusive-consclusive-objective Science, should be more than the mere study of objects and materials -
> 
Science has never been the "mere study of objects and materials". Without going into it too much, I return to my earlier hint about whether you endorsed the ontological distinction between subjective and objective reality. If you do, then you might realise that there are tentative steps into a subjective science of consciousness.

But anyways, science is about explanations and not the "mere study of objects and materials".
> something more than the production/consumption of materials goods (technology) and ego roles (in the form of a scientifc authority).
> 

That is not part of science. Economics does not seem to be a science, although it pretends to that status at times. This is because it seems to be impossible to do crucial experiments in economics. As for scientific authority...if you read the work of David Deutsch or Popper - two great philosophers that this list comments about regularly - you would understand that scientific authority is not something good scientists when doing good science endorse.

> 
> Otherwise, Science should NOT claim exclusivity in Knowledge and superiority in method. 
> 

It doesn't. It never has. Maybe some people, being silly do. Some people, being silly, are scientists.
> 
> After all, only results can be the criteria of how usuful and succesful Science and the scienfic method could be. 
> 

Yes. Results - observations generally - decide between one theory and another where two or more competing theories exist. This is rare.


But observations are not the only thing. Have you read FoR or BoI?
> 
> > On the other hand, that the Earth is not 6000 years old is not the result of mere parochial bias. It is simply the case given our best understanding of the world.
> > 
> > If there is no epistemic objectivity to science, then are all opinions equally valid? If so...how does progress happen? Why do we have iPhones now and none 2000 years ago? 
> 
> There is some epistemic objectivity, conditionally and always specific
> to the issue/situation in question. I am theory-oriented so, evetything goes back to that. That's why i believe that QM is not about just science/scientific events but about metaphysics and Meta-theory in itself! ;)
> 

What does theory oriented mean? 

Everything anyone knows about anything, is a theory. Some theories are good explanations. Some are less so. Almost all are false and even those we currently think are correct are likely to be proven false.

So I would say that I, as a knowing subject, am of necessity (by definition, if you will) not merely *oriented* towards theories but my very self is in large part shaped by theories. Although I am not identical to my ideas, my ideas are a crucial part of me. To merely be 'oriented' towards these theories, my very own ideas, seems far too weak a claim. But then, what do *you* mean by "oriented"?
> 
> Now, the word PROGRESS is kinda difficult and we have to be VERY careful with a few things.
> 


Nar, progress is easy. For example, methods of navigation today are better, by any measure, than those of the past. GPS is better than inertial navigation, which is better than using the stars, which is better than simply guessing where you are going. That suggests progress. Easy.

The treatments for many diseases today are better than those in the past. Now they work. In the past, many simply did not.

Murder rates are much lower these days than in the dark past. Progress.

It's easy when you think about it.
> 
> What is the aim of Science?
> 
To come up with good, explanatory theories. To solve problems.
> isn't the pursuit of Truth, ontologically -and Cosmologically speaking.
> 

Isn't it? Well, yes, there is objective truth but science isn't about obtaining some final ontological truth. That would be a fool's errand because we have no way of knowing if we have obtained it. The best we can do is improve. This means...make progress. Which is easy to assess. For example, we can compare the accuracy and precision of our predictions. For example: predicting Mercury's orbit can be done using Newton's theory of gravity. But you get better results using general relativity. Again, an easy measure of progress. Simple.

> 
> Technology is the product of Science but that's by far what Progress really means -and what Progress should be all about. 
> 
What about that stuff I just said about Mercury's orbit? It need not be technology. 
> 
> Progress in what? 
> 
Knowledge, of course. Better, deeper theories. Those that explain more and unify more fields. Progress in all areas of knowledge.
> 
> Yes we do have the technology to make iphones etc. but
> do we really live in a better world bc of tehnology?
> 
Of course we do! Primitive cultures made for short, violent lives full of suffering. A longer life with less suffering is better. By what measure is it worse?
> is our life better bc of the iphones and all the rest marvels of Technology?
> 

Yes. 
> 
> Don't take me wrong here, i mot nihilistic, and i do love my toys too, but a serious Science should provide REAL solutions to REAL problems. 
> 

It does. It's not the only game in town. One needs philosophy. And ethics. One requires philosophy of science - epistemology in particular. One needs mathematics. One needs, in short, knowledge and a rational disposition. But one needs science. And science solves problems. Real ones. 

What is a fictional problem? My guess is something like: how can Harry Potter kill he-who-cannot-be-named or some such?
> 
> While I am not gonna get into any environmental/social/theologiocal issues here, (yes, they do exist)
> 
why do you insist they exist? Do you think I would think there are no problems in society, theology or the environment? If you think that, you're wrong.
> i am gonna ask you:
> 
> Do you beleieve that Science (as is now) is in the service of Humanity?
> 
It solves problems that humans find interesting. All soluble problems are interesting...and the corollary holds too. So...of course science "is in the service of Humanity" (and more broadly, animals).
> If not, i will argue that we have not made any great Progress! (with the wider meaning of Progress) ;)
> 
You need to provide your meaning of progress. I mean improvement. I mean better predictions that are closer to the truth. 
> 
> And going beyond some luxuries and technological miracles, do you think that science and technology are in the 'right' direction? (again, in terms of Progress in human affairs and civil-ization)
> 
Of course. In the direction of progress.
> 
> Look around you, people all over the world are still @ war with themselves and each other.
> 
Um...so? Science cannot force people to make good decisions. It just gives them tools to solve their problems. It is one, huge, error correction machine. That's it. What else do you want from it?
> Technology does provide some solutions -to very problems we create, but that's different than Progress! 
> 
> Sure, Prozac and Viagra could help one cope with life and still able to be functional and do certain things, but is that all that Science and Technology can do?
> 
No. You're off on a high horse, attacking a straw man.
> 
> Science also has an ego-ccentric/anthropocentric character, thus, becomes limited -and cursed to these very same variables. 
> 

You have clearly not read BoI where David Deutsch (again, whose work underpins this very list) has written precisely the opposite of this sort of view. 
> 
> I will accept a few things but i can not accept Science's claim for exlusivity and superiority in knowledge and method of all human and cosmic affairs.
> 

Nor me. Again...a straw man. Why are you arguing this point? I can only guess you just don't understand the general themes underpinning the work of DD that this list is formed to discuss. I agree that science is not the exclusive final word on all things. It's the exclusive word on scientific matters. There is no final word. It cannot be the exclusive word on why, for example, we should value rationality over irrationality. Or what exactly a good explanation *is*.
> 
> The gift of self-reflection (beyond some great inventions, isn't that the root of all marvels in human evolution and science and technology?) becomes a curse when we can not *justify* our aims and ways and goals.
> 

You're a justificationist. You should read about justificationism on these lists, or in DD's books. Justificationism is false.
> It becomes the problem and not the solution. thus, the need for 'complementation' in theories and methods....
> 
> On the other hand, highly-programmed animals don't have certain *existential* and perceptual and even ethical problems; the Spider's way to make its web is equally and superbly 'scientific' but by far more advanced in other ways -it does not purposely and recklessly destroy its environment and itself; its purpose is to kill for survival -not for luxury or bc of bad politics, or bc repressed insticts and pathological ideologies. My cat does not need to *think*; she knows things *directly*; she is connected with the Universal in ways we, regardless our technology, have not even started to imagine! 
> 
There is too much there for the moment to comment on, perhaps we can come back to that later when you address my previous points.
> 
> so from that perspective, while technologically advanced, the human race is kinda...far behind in some of the most important aspects that would ensure the continuationa and well-being of our species ;)
> 
Humans should be more like spiders?
> That is what Progress should be all about! ;)
> 
> What we need is not just information and knowledge but the necessary *wisdom* and *values* to ensure that the fruits of any scientific/technological progress are in the service of Humanity and in line with Cosmological/Energetic events. 
> 

I couldn't agree more. We need wisdom and values. Whoever said otherwise?
> 
> I won't speak about Theological theories/events, but it seems to me that the quest for Knowlewdge and Truth in cosmic events, is also a quest for Divine Realization and Identification..... 
> 
Divine is a word whose meaning is not clear to me. Does it imply a superintelligence that listens to prayers?
> 
> That's where the concept of *meaning* becomes of paramount value in all affairs -including scientifc affairs.
> 

I don't think we need to invoke supernatural divinity to give meaning to stuff. I'm not sure how meaning works. You seem to be. So tell me more.
> That's also where QM could serve the needs of Science and Humanity.
> 

Any attempt to link QM to divinity is metaphysical BS.
> 
> > 
> > Or have we discovered that some theories are, objectively speaking, better than others? Indeed, have we, objectively, shown some to be false?
> 
> Yes, and that is Progress, indeed.
> 
> > > 
> > > Can we see and recognize now the need for a *complementary* theory/science? is it possible?
> > > 
> > What does "complementary" mean? Can it mean something other than "contradictory"?
> > > 
> > > what are the implictions of such theory/endeavor?
> > > 
> > Relativism.
> > > 
> > > ;)
> > > 
> > > 
> > :D
> > 
> "Complimentary" for me implies and negates some degree of Wholism and Unity; some better Understanding (of the process ) and then some productive Actualization/Realization (of genetic/energetic potential).
> 
Lots of words thrown together there. I know them individually, but together the way you have joined them...makes the sentence opaque to analysis.
> 
> Finally, i think that PROGRESS is all about Scientific Creativity and Philosophical Inspiration (to carry out succesfully the above tasks) but i see those two as ONE. ;)
> 

Progress does involve scientific creativity. Creativity is crucial. Creativity and inspiration are linked. Philosophy and science have much in common and help each other, but I do not think they are the same. It is useful to notice the differences.
> 
> "No entity without identity." 
> -W. V. Quine
> 

"What can be said at all, can be said clearly and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in science"

-L. Wittgenstein.

(Who didn't take his own advice).

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