(Sorry if Figure 1 is distorted. Please refer to my earlier posts for an
undistorted version.)
Howard, Frederik, list,
I am enjoying this interesting debate on QM and semiotics.
How about the following resolution suggested by the category theory ?
f g
Reality ------- > Phenomenon -----------> Theory
(QM,semiotics)
| |
| |
|___________________________________________|
h
Figure 1. Bohrean quantum mechanics and Peircean semiotics as
complementary views of reality, the the former advocating anti-realism and
the latter realism. f = natural process; g = mental process; h =
grounding/validation.
If this scheme is right, the category theory of mathematics suggests that
Bohrean QM and Peircean semiotics are complementary aspects of a true
theory yet to come (?).
With all the best.
Sung
____________________________________________________
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
> At 09:08 AM 11/7/2014, Frederik Stjernfelt wrote:
>
>>I am not sure. Much of the yet unresolved
>>discussion of QM have to do with deciding which
>>ontological commitments come with the
>>Schrödinger equation. As far as I have
>>understood, there is no scientific agreement about this. . .
>
> HP: That is true, and you mention several
> "unnatural" epistemologies; but there is general
> agreement that QM cannot be interpreted by
> Peircean Realism. In fact, most teachers of
> QM struggle with the intuitively realist
> perspectives of introductory students. In
> teaching QM, Realism blocks the path of inquiry.
>
>>FS: . . .(unlike basic knowledge about iron and cakes etc.)
>
> HP: This assumption appears to beg the general
> question. Is there agreement about how "basic knowledge" relates to
> reality?
>
>>FS: But this [QM ambiguity] is not generalizable
>>to the idea that all scientific knowledge is subject to the same
>> ambiguity.
>
> HP: I'm not sure what you are implying. Are you
> agreeing with me that different types of
> knowledge benefit from different epistemologies?
> Or do you only mean that ambiguities in classical
> models are different ambiguities from those in
> QM? (I assume you don't mean there are no
> ambiguities or that Peirce has spoken, the case is closed.)
>
> Howard
>
>
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
