Since Kedaman and I seem to be contaminating someone else's thread with our insessant claptrap (once again), I have created another thread where we can escape to and leave the other threads to get back to their original topics.
Printable View
Since Kedaman and I seem to be contaminating someone else's thread with our insessant claptrap (once again), I have created another thread where we can escape to and leave the other threads to get back to their original topics.
Okay, it took me a while to get here, my connection have been doing tricks on me all the time :(
So anyways, where were we? should I paste my last said things here or do you think we can just start from here?
What makes it fit better? How do you know it fits better? Because you make observations that corroborate your model? Because you make observations which refute other models? Perhaps you just prefer, asthetically speaking, one explanation over another.Quote:
That's psychology, I choose one model over another because I think it fits better and yep that's entirely subjective, but what does that matter, according to QM reality is subjective anyways.
The method by which one can compare to rival explanations, taken from the link on Popper, is as follows:
Quote:
Assuming that the truth-content and the falsity-content of two theories t1 and t2 are comparable, we can say that t2 is more closely similar to the truth, or corresponds better to the facts, than t1, if and only if either:
(a) the truth-content but not the falsity-content of t2 exceeds that of t1, or
(b) the falsity-content of t1, but not its truth-content, exceeds that of t2.
That's exactly what it comes down to, I value information not only useful, because I need it for something, I need information directly, Provided that I have good understanding of information I can see the beauty of it :)Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
What makes it fit better? How do you know it fits better? Because you make observations that corroborate your model? Because you make observations which refute other models? Perhaps you just prefer, asthetically speaking, one explanation over another.
but what's the purpose of that, either something has to be true or false, a statment A and B and C and D is only true if each and one of those are true.Quote:
(a) the truth-content but not the falsity-content of t2 exceeds that of t1, or
(b) the falsity-content of t1, but not its truth-content, exceeds that of t2.
Well, you don't observe it because we, by definition, can only perceive one universe at a time (there might be another version of me in another universe but we are seperate).Quote:
Ok, say we have an event E, and it does not happen in one of two parallel univeses but in the other, how do you observe that it happens in the other universe while not in the first?
Parellel universes, as an explanation, are not, as you have suggested, universally accepted by the mainstream. The mainstream adopt a more instrumentalist approach partly because they don't like the implications that QM suggest and also that there is no conclusive evidence for the existance of parellel universes. The mainstream prefer to interpret QM by saying that the underlying reality is undefined. Thus they don't have to consider the disturbing notions of parellel universes and the like.
Those that do accept the notion of parellel universes do so because of it's explanatory power. Many of the baffling results of QM that appear strange and random fall quite logically from a parellel universe explanation.
Well, that definition only works on the presumption that both theories t1 and t2 are known to be mere approximations of the truth. We know that neither represent the truth, we just need a means of selecting the most useful one (in the absense of anything better).Quote:
but what's the purpose of that, either something has to be true or false, a statment A and B and C and D is only true if each and one of those are true.
I'm beginning to dislike it more and more, t1 and 2 theorems are either true or false, because there is an underlying reality which either falsificates it or not, now what are you saying now, that theories are approximations? Where is the consistency in that?
now why does scientists tend to subscribe an instrumentalist view? Isn't it not because they know that it's not possible to find a underlying reality, only approximate it with models?Quote:
The mainstream prefer to interpret QM by saying that the underlying reality is undefined. Thus they don't have to consider the disturbing notions of parellel universes and the like.
Yous two neev to ride sum punani ;)
Aiiiiiiiiieee
Kedaman
Well, I think they are reluctant to associate themselves with "wacky" notions like parellel universes and such. They don't want to get labelled as crackpots as career reputations are very important to them.Quote:
now why does scientists tend to subscribe an instrumentalist view? Isn't it not because they know that it's not possible to find a underlying reality, only approximate it with models?
In addition, whilst many scientists tend to an instrumentalist point of view, I doubt if there are any true instrumentalists amoung them. Few scientists want to detach themselves from notions of an underlying reality as, at the end of the day, that is the drive and motivation behind most scientists: They want to reveal the true nature of reality, not just find useful models that allow them to predict results.
You seem to be hovering between two differeing perspectives. One minute you confess that we can only ever approximate reality and another minute you say that we shouldn't even bother to do that.Quote:
I'm beginning to dislike it more and more, t1 and 2 theorems are either true or false, because there is an underlying reality which either falsificates it or not, now what are you saying now, that theories are approximations? Where is the consistency in that?
Once again you are driven to the extreme of insisting that something is either right or completely wrong. In life, problems (and their solutions) are never like that.
When a scientist is trying to solve a problem, several solutions or theorems may present themselves. The scientist must choose amoungst them, none of them being completely worthless and none of them being completely perfect. Some can be eliminated with the falsification principle. The rest must be weighed up and considered based on their merits and drawbacks.
We are not looking for the ideal solution, nor should we expect to find it. We hope only to achieve the best solution from the array of possibilities that we are considering.
The underlying reality may be absolute and render something either right or wrong. We cannot know the underlying reality so we can only approximate. We do not have a perfect process here but that doesn't matter, we are not trying to yield perfect answers.
Simon
Scientists cannot hold together the large quantity of information in one consistant piece, mostly because they are specialized on different areas, and likewise science is specialized and not uniform, this is an instrumentalistic course of action, because you need to conform to problems with solutions that are specifically modelled for the situations, drawing parallels to an objective universe is just instinctive ethetical thinking and as you said driven by exploration instinct and need of reputation. What's the use of the notation of paralel universes? Obviously you can't gain market on technology based on paralel universes, so there's no reason why research should perform in that direction even if it was possible to model your future trough technology. You see that everything comes from our needs, and that science is nothing but a instrumentalistic notation, that we need to develope the transaction of information to satisfy our needs.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Well, I think they are reluctant to associate themselves with "wacky" notions like parellel universes and such. They don't want to get labelled as crackpots as career reputations are very important to them.
I didn't confess anything, I was elaborating realist view on what they could do with reality, that is approximate it, not define it. My argument is the same as before that the scientists are only approximating to their observations, which is a source purely information, and is not nessesarily connected to reality.Quote:
You seem to be hovering between two differeing perspectives. One minute you confess that we can only ever approximate reality and another minute you say that we shouldn't even bother to do that.
It doesn't matter what most scientists think, if QM falsificates their beleifs then it is according to Popper's notation of science not real.Quote:
In addition, whilst many scientists tend to an instrumentalist point of view, I doubt if there are any true instrumentalists amoung them. Few scientists want to detach themselves from notions of an underlying reality as, at the end of the day, that is the drive and motivation behind most scientists: They want to reveal the true nature of reality, not just find useful models that allow them to predict results.
That's my point, in life you don't need to have a "real" definition for everything, you only need the approximative models.Quote:
Once again you are driven to the extreme of insisting that something is either right or completely wrong. In life, problems (and their solutions) are never like that.
Kedaman
There is a very interesting exercise that you can participate in (unfortunately, the competition is out of date) that is highly pertinent to our discussion here.
Dealing with science
It concerns the long running debates regarding the scientific method.
Firstly, what is the basis for scientific discoveries: Induciton/falsification
Secondly, is there an underlying reality that scientists are trying to discover: Realism/Instrumentalism
Let me know what you think.
looks like fun :)
I don't think this is, particularly a consequance of instrumentalist leanings. Many of the "great" theories in science have been those that bridge two (or more) previously unrelated disciplines.Quote:
...and likewise science is specialized and not uniform, this is an instrumentalistic course of action, because you need to conform to problems with solutions that are specifically modelled for the situations...
The goal of most scientists is to find deeper and wider theories that encompass many other theories in a more consise and unified fashion. The search for the "theory of everything" seeks to bride all scientific disciplines together once and forall.
As far as an instrumentalist is concerned, an idea like "parellel universes" has no value whatsoever. However, realists argue that real scientific progress comes through finding good explanations and not just making observations.Quote:
What's the use of the notation of paralel universes? Obviously you can't gain market on technology based on paralel universes, so there's no reason why research should perform in that direction even if it was possible to model your future trough technology.
For example, take Galilao. Would his theory of the motion of the planets ever have come about just by being a strict instrumentalist? He could have sat there all day making observations about the positions of the stars (as had many before him) and then attempted to generalise a hypothesis from those observations to build a model that would enable him to predict future observations. He would have failed though.
Whatever theory he came up with that was based on a generalisation made from previous observations, it would be no more vindicated than an infinity of other (potential) theories that
were also consistant with the previous observations (but would yield different predictions about the future).
Galiao was successful because he postulated a theory that attempted to explain the underyling nature of the astral bodies he was observing. He was attempting to explain the reality that caused the observations he made.
Why was his explanation accepted over that of the prevailing view of the time (all astral objects orbit the earth at the centre of the universe)? Because it was a better explanation. Not because it's predictions were more consistant with the observations made. Indeed, we no that his models were inaccurate (they depicted the planets moving in perfect circles) but he was able to predict observations of astral bodies more easilly than that of the other available theories.
Thus, instrumentalism lacks the means of driving scientific progress (even thought it likes to superimpose itself retrospectively onto scientific discoveries).
And how come discoveries like bohr's atom model and quantum mechanics are ignored now? They're certainly not result from belief in an underlying reality. Even thought there is success in believing in it, I don't think it is fundamentally because of that. An instrumentalist can subscribe the blackbox analogy that any implementation of a system that better approximates it's interface, leads to the same success. Your argument is a specification of this argument, because it only adds the reference to a reality, to the implementation. In this sense all realists are instrumentalists, but all instrumentalists are not realists.Quote:
Galiao was successful because he postulated a theory that attempted to explain the underyling nature of the astral bodies he was observing. He was attempting to explain the reality that caused the observations he made.
You'll have to explain further on that one I'm afraid, I'm not sure how it is significant to your point.Quote:
And how come discoveries like bohr's atom model and quantum mechanics are ignored now?
Perhaps, but an instrumentalist can only use induction to predict the behaviour of the black box in question. He will refrain from speculating on the nature of the inner workings and therefore only try to form a hypothesis from the observations he makes of the black box behavior.Quote:
An instrumentalist can subscribe the blackbox analogy that any implementation of a system that better approximates it's interface, leads to the same success.
The point I'm making here is, without the presumption of an underlying reality, what else does the instrumentalist have to go on? All he can do is try to induce a hypothesis from the observations he makes. Do you really believe that it is better to use induction (whilst refraining from assuming an underlying reality) than using falsification to eliminate conjectured hypothesis (of an assumed reality)?
Where do you find true nature in that radiation can be a particle or a wave depending on how you are looking at it?Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
You'll have to explain further on that one I'm afraid, I'm not sure how it is significant to your point.
An instrumentalist can use every tool nessesary for success, not only induction. A realist can only use a set of methods that are defined to operate with real concepts.Quote:
Perhaps, but an instrumentalist can only use induction to predict the behaviour of the black box in question. He will refrain from speculating on the nature of the inner workings and therefore only try to form a hypothesis from the observations he makes of the black box behavior.
an underlying reality can be practical in a lot of situations, but only for those situations, its nothing absolute and persistent.Quote:
The point I'm making here is, without the presumption of an underlying reality, what else does the instrumentalist have to go on? All he can do is try to induce a hypothesis from the observations he makes. Do you really believe that it is better to use induction (whilst refraining from assuming an underlying reality) than using falsification to eliminate conjectured hypothesis (of an assumed reality)?
Well, I'm not saying that I have the answer but an instrumentalist would say that I shouldn't even look for one. A realist would insist that there is a "true" nature underpinning the behaviour of such as system and then would start to search for an array of possibilities that he considers to be "good" contenders for being a good approximation of that underlying reality.Quote:
Where do you find true nature in that radiation can be a particle or a wave depending on how you are looking at it?
He will then attempt to eliminate contenders by the process of falsification and whatever's left, he will choose the one that has the greatest explanatory power.
What other tools does an instrumentalist have other than induction?Quote:
An instrumentalist can use every tool nessesary for success, not only induction.
All tools. A tool that leads you to a closer approximation of the implementation, is successful.
A realist is restricted to tools that deals with the notation of reality: so for instance logic would only be available to instrumentalists.
What "tools" are we talking about here?Quote:
All tools. A tool that leads you to a closer approximation of the implementation, is successful.
What is this "implementation" that you're talking about? Is not the implementation just the underlying reality?
Not really, a realist assumes that logic defines the way reality works so he will feel completely at home using it.Quote:
A realist is restricted to tools that deals with the notation of reality: so for instance logic would only be available to instrumentalists.
Information
Information is a tool you know :)
A realist would be restricted to see it that way. An instrumentalist can see it in all ways.Quote:
Is not the implementation just the underlying reality?
Wrong, A there is no true realist, he have to use instrumental skills to achieve things, logic is not natural, it does not define a reality, its merely a bunch of axioms with no connection to reality.Quote:
Not really, a realist assumes that logic defines the way reality works so he will feel completely at home using it.
I think the fact of the matter here is that both extremes are logically absurd. A pure realist and a pure instrumentalist are both bound to fail.
However, I don't think that it will easy to come to an agreement here. This is obviously a long running philisophical debate and people cannot agree which is right.
Did you do that science game? Did you arrive at the correct hypothesis? If so, how did you arrive at the correct hypothesis?
I must admit that I have not had enough time to see it through but I suspect that it is designed in such a way to trip up inductionists.
Essentially being a true instrumentalist doesn't mean that you don't use realist methods and vice versa so theyre not extremes, what I'd say, anyways, I had problems with that science game, I was so sure it was odd-even until it came up with that, I guess i'll give it another try today :)
Hmm, what about odd and even until hearts of 2 shows up, then odd or even :p it works ;)
Are you inducing hypothesis based on the observations you have made?
nope, I'm still trying to find something that has to work for all cards