Re: Why physicists should pay attention to the mind

Ralph Hartley <hartley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>I don't have time to reply to your whole post right now (and it would be
>off topic). In this post I will restrict my comments to one point,
>relating to the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

>rof@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Second, I want to set the stage by caricaturing a "debate" in
>> philosophy, namely the debate between ontologists and epistemologists.
>> In physics, there is a corresponding debate between people
>> who call themselves realists and those who don't.
>>
>> Ontologist: I'm examining the things that exist. Really really exist.
>> Like the world. That really really exists. It's really real.
>>
>> Epistemologist: We need to pay attention to the way in which we
>> acquire knowledge, and to the status of that knowledge.
>..
>> 2. The vast majority of physicists are ontologists.

>I don't think so.

>The reason physicists don't like to talk about interpretations of
>quantum mechanics is that they are epistemologists.

>Physicists, almost universally, are committed to a *particular* way of
>acquiring knowledge. Build theories, test with experiment, repeat, try
>the simple ones first. Some might even claim that's the *only* way to
>acquire knowledge, but even if it isn't, it's their way.

Perhaps you are saying that there's a silent majority of physicists
who would not disagree with the statement "The wavefunction describes
the actual state of the system, rather than the experimenter's
knowledge about it."

Maybe; we would need to do a poll to find that out. Perhaps it's
been done already?

R.

.

Relevant Pages