Re: Inequivalence of models

[Judith Rosen <***>]

Howard Pattee wrote: As you often challenge us: Define "objective."  Physicists define 
objective knowledge as those aspects of our experience that are independent 
of the state, frame of mind, or cultural background of any real or 
imaginable observer. For example, the so-called constants of Nature, like 
the speed of light, the charge of the electron, the spin of particles, 
Planck's constant, etc. are objective. You will not find it possible to 
explain these values as mere human mental creations.

Sure I can! "Planck's" constant....
"Speed" of "light"...
"Charge" of "the" "electron"...

All these things are based entirely on human perceptions, either directly, or via 
technologies that we create. My definition of "objective" is the same as physics but I 
would word it differently: "Untainted by human perceptions or human belief structures". 

In my view, that can't be done-- at least, not by humans. As you quoted Einstein in a 
previous post: he said something to the effect that all measures that we make of the 
universe are only approximations. That's the best we can do. However, if we don't 
recognize that fact, and start making decisions based on assumptions that we concretely 
understand the forces of the universe... we will cause side effects. 

On the other hand; If we proceed from an understanding of complexity, with a good working 
knowledge of the nature of side effects, I think we are less likely to do quite as much 
damage.

Judith


Web address: www.rosen-enterprises.com