sounds like a great solution! - but meticulously distinguishing what is realist in science and what is not is different from indecidability … F
Den 01/12/2014 kl. 21.08 skrev Howard Pattee <hpat...@roadrunner.com<mailto:hpat...@roadrunner.com>> : By "undecidable" I was thinking of the typical philosopher's either-or views between epistemologies, or the ideological commitment to a single epistemology. In physics, each case requires a pragmatic decision. I appear to be a realist toward events that I cannot conceive of as depending in any way on my existence. That would include the concept of natural laws. I appear as a nominalist toward those aspects of events which are dependent on my choice or intervention. That usually includes aspects of observation and measurement (the quantum measurement problem may require something new). The concept of probability has to be viewed at least two ways.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
