Re: Judith's challenge #1

[John Kineman <***>]

Howard & list

In response to:
HP: I have to reflect on this. Von Neumann’s views about quantum measurement definitely takes 
into account the scientist in the NS, but I’m not sure whether this would be considered  
ontological.
Can you give me your concept of “ontological’?


JK: Yes. Take the word "we" in the statements you quoted showing
similarity between RR and VN. Both mean "humans" in the epistemological
sense. RR's view, taken to its limits (and I am convinced he was sensing
and implying this fairly early into his work), means everything, not
just humans, not just life (although the ideas were initially developed
for the biological domain). So, now put Schrodinger's cat in the NS box,
an amoeba, a particle interaction itself - all representable as a set of
modeling relations. That constitutes an ontology: i.e., fundamental
origin or definition of reality for the purpose of theory development,
or basis on which theory is developed (worldview in Khun's terms, MRP in
Popper's). Otherwise I agree that the two views are essentially
identical at the epistemological level, which is the study of
knowability, generally applied to mean knowability by humans, and not
necessarily something that is also thought to be happening in other life
or material systems.




> Howard

--
© 2004 John J. Kineman
all rights reserved