Re: [Fis] Bell\\\'s inequality: Can we find its classical analogue? Classical and Quantum waves
Professor John Collier Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http://ukzn.ac.za/undphil/collier >>> Andrei Khrennikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06/05/06 2:54 PM >>> Dear John, > > On a somewhat different track, but relevant, > Nancy Cartwright was studying econometrics, and Do you know how is it possible to find a description of her ideas. I am guite sure that there will be something wrong in her considerations. I really doubt it, since Bas van Fraasen felt obliged to respond to it with a very ad hoc antirealist response. She gave the paper at the 11th Annual Wittgenstein Congress, and it should be in the proceedings, published in 1987 by Vienna: Holder-Pichler-Tempsky. As, I mentioned, it fits my information theoretic account of causation perfectly (though the means of transmission are obscure, unless you adopt the Bohm-Hiley interpretation of QM, or some variant), which has other attractions. In any case, the Bell inequalities apply to the econometics case. Nancy's book on that is among the references on her summer course page (2005) at http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/nielsen/res/Cartwright/Econometrics%20Summer%20School%20on%20Causality.pdf You probably want to look also at Nature's Capacities and Their Measurement. The Amazon page is http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0198235070/103-4607926-5971044?v=glance&n=283155 I am posting this to fis as well, since there may be more general interest. Cheers, John John Please find our disclaimer at http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer <<<>>> ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Addition of probabilities
Koichiro Matsuno wrote: However, quantum mechanics interprets the experiments in a Hilbert space. If a physicist picks up a strange Hilbert space, a biological organism may have a curious intersection between being alive and dead there. This is only a problem if one interprets the Hilbert space as truth. If one interprets it as a mental model made with limited information, the curious intersection is actually an expression of an *observer's* uncertainty about the organism being alive or dead or both or none. QM is much less confusing if one adopts the internalist stance. The superposition is a formalization of an observer's inability to decide between multiple contingencies. Aleks ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Last remark o n Bell´s theo rem and nonlocality
Hello, These days we have in Vaxjo the conference \"Foundations of Probability and Physics-4\", see http://www.vxu.se/msi/aktuellt/konferens/index.xml There were many talks and discussions including experimenters from leading labs in quantum information. I would like again to remark that ideas that there was something DEFINITELY experimentally proved on the basis of Bell´s inequality are very naive. After 40 years of attempts to perform an experiment in that two conditions would be satisfied: a) Locality -- space separation; b) Efficiency of detectors (or more general fair sampling assumption) one should recognize that nobody knows how to perform such an experiment. Therefore I would not pay so much attention to Bell\'s inequality. I am afraid that some expectations were interpreted too seriously. First we should perform an experiment, and then speak about nonlocality. My conjecture is that an experiment combining both a and b would be never performed. These conditions are a kind of uncertainty relations. With Best Regards, Andrei Khrennikov Director of International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics, Engineering, Economy and Cognitive Sc., University of Vaxjo, Sweden ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] Bell\'s inequality: Can we find its classical analogue?Classical and Quantum waves
>One decisive difficulty with the quantum world is with its
> limited linguistic accessibility. If one dares to say
> something definite about the Q world in third person
> description in the present tense, this would come to imply
> something definite, whenever and wherever. This form of
> linguistic practice would inadvertently have to accept a
> space of an infinite extension, whether flat or curved.
> Eventually, the practice asking for a descriptive invariant
> would reluctantly have to surrender itself to denial of the Q
> world. Of course, the situation is not so pessimistic as it
> may look. Unicellular organisms constituting more than 90% of
> the biomass on the Earth may not be familiar with what
> Euclid, Newton and Einstein accomplished, but are superb
> dwellers in the Q world that have kept a long record of
> surviving the hardships.
Dear Koichiro and colleagues,
After brightly explaining that these universes emerge within a discourse,
you jump to a realistic conclusion in the last sentence: "Unicellular
organisms constituting more than 90% of the biomass on the Earth may not be
familiar with what Euclid, Newton and Einstein accomplished, but are superb
dwellers in the Q world that have kept a long record of surviving the
hardships."
Shouldn't it be:
"... but can be considered as superb dwellers in the Q world that have kept
a long record of surviving the hardships."
By mixing the metaphor of biological evolution theory ("surviving") and the
metaphor of the Q world, you seem to reconstruct the synchronization that
you wished to avoid ?
With best wishes,
Loet
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
