Re: [Fis] Fw: Isms Healing the Subject-Object split
Dear Hans colleagues, Thank you for all the exciting comments in the aftermath of the Lecture. It is the ill-fated of me to be unable to pay the due attention to all these fast exchanges... Anyhow, during these days I am keeping a few questions, among them: --Partition Logic. It is an alternative to Boolean Logic based in the distinctional properties of partitions as opposed (or better, complementarity) to set membership or pertenence to classes. New notions of probability, entropy, and a new approach to information theory may be obtained. Seemingly some of the leading figures of this field, conspicuosly David Ellerman, are working in the Quantum application. Not only information theory can be refounded on partition logic, as they say, partitional mathematics is just the set version of the mathematical machinery of QM, or, put the other way around, the mathematics of QM can be obtained by ‘lifting’ the machinery of partitions on sets to complex vector spaces. If that research program turns out to be successful, then quantum mechanics would be the ‘killer application’ of partition logic. See Antroduction to Partition Logic by David Ellerman, 2013, in Logic Journal of IGPL. I introduce the theme because in my own now the reading of both topics (QBism and partitions) has almost coincided and I was really surprised about the many commonalities. Joseph's LIR might find all this of interest I think. In this list Karl has already worked in the partitional theme, although (am I wrong?) in a rather idiosyncratically way--fortunately this is a list full of mavericks! -- Biology continues to be the kingdom of mechanism. In spite of the massive reliance of molecular biology discoveries on the information metaphor, molecular mentalities have changed little, only moved towards, say, the technological bioinformatic but not towards the bioinformational. The deep sense of what I call the information-flow of communication and how it dovetails with the energy-flow of self-production is monumentally absent. Biologically, the subject/object split is alive and well: circulation of new ideas in between disciplines is not terribly smooth. It belongs to how the individual limitation percolates into the collective works of the communal intelligence (the limitations transpire to the new realm in new ways). -- A related (bioinspired) metaphor: in the living, everything is in the making and in the dismantling. Thus, in what extent are bosonic exchanges the communication stuff and fermions are the more permanent self-production agent/structures? If interesting at all, I could frame the question of how physical entities self-produce via communication a little bit better. --And finally, really finally, about laws of nature--i.e., quantum laws. Although QBism is not quite interested in the out there, it might consider about the existential status of those laws within space-time, in connection with other existentialities, couldn't it? Again, better framing of the question if needed. all the best ---Pedro *o:* fis@listas.unizar.es mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es *Sent:* Sunday, January 12, 2014 3:16 PM *Subject:* [Fis] Isms Physicists generally don't spend much time on distinguishing among philosophical isms. However, since my New Year lecture was on an ism, I can't very well avoid them! Gordana speaks of Instrumentalist Epistemology and Epistemological Instrumentalism. As I understand it, instrumentalism was a term preferred by Dewey to pragmatism, which I called the philosophy most closely related to QBism. So I would agree that pragmatism/instrumentalism is a good framework for exploring both the implications of QBism beyond quantum mechanics, and, conversely, for understanding the claims of QBism itself -- especially in contrast to realism. A new ism was introduced by David Mermin in a short paper submitted on the eve of my New Year Lecture (arxiv.org http://arxiv.org paper id 1312.7825.) But since his point of view, by his own admission, is that of QBism /tout court/, I won't dwell on his new term. Mermin shows that the philosophy of QBism solves the Problem of the Now, which has nothing to do with quantum mechanics or probability. The question, which frustrated Einstein, is: Why can physics not deal with the universal human experience of the unique moment called NOW? Mermin answers that the problem arises from a fundamental mistake. Since the time of the Greeks we have banished the subject (me -- myself) from any description of the object (the rest of the universe.) Since NOW is a personal experience, it therefore played no role in physics. QBism, on the other hand, puts personal experience front and center in any description of the world. The NOWs of several people coincide only when they are in the
[Fis] Fw: Isms Healing the Subject-Object split
Dear All, I think I have discovered what it was that was bothering me about QBism: it was only the particular 'detour' through atomic physics that Hans made, that is, one that requires Bayesian probability to describe its terms (see New Year Lecture). Here are two key tenets of QBism, however, with which I completely agree: 1) personal experience is put front and center in any description of the world, we now see, solving the problem of the apparent simultaneity of the perception of the Now by two individuals. 2) it goes a long way toward healing the subject/object split, which has been effective for physical science, but has also impeded progress toward a more inclusive, holistic understanding of the world. I think it is wonderful that Hans von Baeyer puts these forth as desirable and necessary objectives for scientists. This is indeed a long way. In my view, we can look at the physics itself again and make further progress towards a holistic understanding of the world. This is what Logic in Reality tries to do, and the tools are a non-standard, non-Bayesian probability that excludes the classical limits of 0 and 1; 2) a generalization of the dualities of physics to higher levels of reality; 3) the removal of other classical 'splits' that have been just as toxic for progress: between time and space, simultaneity and succession, cause and effect, energy and information; and 4) the introduction of a third term that is emergent from the original two. We thus have, for example, subject, object and subject-object. The latter is not static, but can behave as a new subject or object in this evolutionary picture. Unlike all other logics, Logic in Reality is not topic-neutral, but defines experiential notions of quality and value, providing a (more) scientific foundation for individual and collective moral responsibility. As you know, there is no 'literature' on the above other than my recent book and articles and the original books and papers by Lupasco and Nicolescu. But I am encouraged by Hans' work to think that the key points of LIR may begin to be perceived as not so outrageous after all. Thank you and best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: Hans von Baeyer To: fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 3:16 PM Subject: [Fis] Isms Physicists generally don't spend much time on distinguishing among philosophical isms. However, since my New Year lecture was on an ism, I can't very well avoid them! Gordana speaks of Instrumentalist Epistemology and Epistemological Instrumentalism. As I understand it, instrumentalism was a term preferred by Dewey to pragmatism, which I called the philosophy most closely related to QBism. So I would agree that pragmatism/instrumentalism is a good framework for exploring both the implications of QBism beyond quantum mechanics, and, conversely, for understanding the claims of QBism itself -- especially in contrast to realism. A new ism was introduced by David Mermin in a short paper submitted on the eve of my New Year Lecture (arxiv.org paper id 1312.7825.) But since his point of view, by his own admission, is that of QBism tout court, I won't dwell on his new term. Mermin shows that the philosophy of QBism solves the Problem of the Now, which has nothing to do with quantum mechanics or probability. The question, which frustrated Einstein, is: Why can physics not deal with the universal human experience of the unique moment called NOW? Mermin answers that the problem arises from a fundamental mistake. Since the time of the Greeks we have banished the subject (me -- myself) from any description of the object (the rest of the universe.) Since NOW is a personal experience, it therefore played no role in physics. QBism, on the other hand, puts personal experience front and center in any description of the world. The NOWs of several people coincide only when they are in the same place -- another universal human experience. With this realization Mermin reconciles the personalist Weltanschauung of the QBist with the insights of special relativity. By way of a detour through atomic physics, QBism goes a long way toward healing the subject/object split, which has been effective for physical science, but has also impeded progress toward a more inclusive, holistic understanding of the world. Since Pedro and many other members of the FIS community are biologists, I hope that this conversation will help to bring physical scientists and life scientists closer to each other. Joseph seeks to defend QBism against the charge of ignorantism. Thank you! When physicists calculate observed properties of the electron to nine decimal points, they are hardly ignorant. But QBists insist that we incapable of knowing the real essence of what an electron is. What's a rainbow? I can't tell you in fewer than 300 words. I can't tell you without telling you a story about light, water, eyes,
Re: [Fis] Fw: Isms Healing the Subject-Object split
Dear Hans, Joe, and colleagues, Healing the subject-object divide from the perspective of personal experiences as advocated here, seems let's say meta-scientific to me. I don't think that there is a logic in reality. Analytical distinctions and arguments (instead of personal experiences) are needed. Because it is Monday morning, I cc to the list. Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ , University of London. http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en hl=en From: Hans von Baeyer [mailto:henrikrit...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 11:30 PM To: Loet Leydesdorff Cc: Joseph Brenner; Pedro C. Marijuan Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: Isms Healing the Subject-Object split Loet, the verb heal is used on all kinds of fissures -- not only in medicine. Biologist, geologists, and metallurgist describe the closing of a crack as healing. The word can be used transitively or intransitively: The doctor healed her leg. The crack in the fuselage seems to have healed. It means made whole The subject-object split is a fundamental divide, at least for physicists. It may also be a mistake. Hans On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net wrote: Dear Joseph, (offline) IMHO, experiences are not so important since easily mistaken. More important are arguments (which of course have to be theoretically informed). One tests hypotheses (expectations) against carefully designed observations in experimental settings. I don't believe in such healing: it is a metaphor from medicine. What or who is healed? Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ , University of London. http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en hl=en From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Joseph Brenner Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 7:05 PM To: fis; Hans von Baeyer; Pedro C. Marijuan Subject: [Fis] Fw: Isms Healing the Subject-Object split Dear All, I think I have discovered what it was that was bothering me about QBism: it was only the particular 'detour' through atomic physics that Hans made, that is, one that requires Bayesian probability to describe its terms (see New Year Lecture). Here are two key tenets of QBism, however, with which I completely agree: 1) personal experience is put front and center in any description of the world, we now see, solving the problem of the apparent simultaneity of the perception of the Now by two individuals. 2) it goes a long way toward healing the subject/object split, which has been effective for physical science, but has also impeded progress toward a more inclusive, holistic understanding of the world. I think it is wonderful that Hans von Baeyer puts these forth as desirable and necessary objectives for scientists. This is indeed a long way. In my view, we can look at the physics itself again and make further progress towards a holistic understanding of the world. This is what Logic in Reality tries to do, and the tools are a non-standard, non-Bayesian probability that excludes the classical limits of 0 and 1; 2) a generalization of the dualities of physics to higher levels of reality; 3) the removal of other classical 'splits' that have been just as toxic for progress: between time and space, simultaneity and succession, cause and effect, energy and information; and 4) the introduction of a third term that is emergent from the original two. We thus have, for example, subject, object and subject-object. The latter is not static, but can behave as a new subject or object in this evolutionary picture. Unlike all other logics, Logic in Reality is not topic-neutral, but defines experiential notions of quality and value, providing a (more) scientific foundation for individual and collective moral responsibility. As you know, there is no 'literature' on the above other than my recent book and articles and the original books and papers by Lupasco and Nicolescu. But I am encouraged by Hans' work to think that the key points of LIR
