- #106
Fra
- 4,177
- 618
I thought the point of the thread was to not polarize, as that leads nowhere, but to propose that the two views are complementary in some fuzzy sense. But it seems hard enough to agree on that.
I am very far from what one traditionally means by a "realist", yet there is this interesting connecting with real and subjective, which bridges the other extreme epistemological empirical stance.
Unless I misinterpreted Demystieifer in earlier recent threads, I think we agreed that noone will ever know with certainty what anything really "is", no matter how much we all want to know. But we (or the agent to be specific) always have an "image" or picture, or "map" of our best abduction of what reality is? (wether the agents have maps that harmonize is a separate question for me)
Wasn't THIS the "ontology", relative to a given "theory", what Demystifier entertained? or am I wrong?
I find it helpful to distinguish between the principles, rather than specifics. In principle, the "ontological view" does not necassarily mean "bohmian mechanics", for me it might as well mean "agent or bayesian mechanics" or soemthing that traditionally is very FAR from the old resistance to QM.
We often say, don't mistake the map for the territory, but the map is all we have, and what we revise. In one extreme one can wonder, does it matter what the territory is? Maybe it's just a mess of interacting maps? Part of the idea is of course, that the other maps are hidden, each player only views it's own map.
For me this neither traditional Realist, not typical physicist. I am symphatetic to parts of both sides.
/Fredrik
I am very far from what one traditionally means by a "realist", yet there is this interesting connecting with real and subjective, which bridges the other extreme epistemological empirical stance.
Unless I misinterpreted Demystieifer in earlier recent threads, I think we agreed that noone will ever know with certainty what anything really "is", no matter how much we all want to know. But we (or the agent to be specific) always have an "image" or picture, or "map" of our best abduction of what reality is? (wether the agents have maps that harmonize is a separate question for me)
Wasn't THIS the "ontology", relative to a given "theory", what Demystifier entertained? or am I wrong?
I find it helpful to distinguish between the principles, rather than specifics. In principle, the "ontological view" does not necassarily mean "bohmian mechanics", for me it might as well mean "agent or bayesian mechanics" or soemthing that traditionally is very FAR from the old resistance to QM.
Does it count if I care about, not ontology of "ultimalte reality" (as we agreed? we can never know), but about the ontology of the MAPs? This is for me the connection. Many TP, doesn't consider the theory as part of reality, it's just part of human science.Demystifier said:I appreciate your patience. Can you try to explain the following to me? If they don't want to engage in such discussions, but still care about these questions, then how is their care manifested?
We often say, don't mistake the map for the territory, but the map is all we have, and what we revise. In one extreme one can wonder, does it matter what the territory is? Maybe it's just a mess of interacting maps? Part of the idea is of course, that the other maps are hidden, each player only views it's own map.
For me this neither traditional Realist, not typical physicist. I am symphatetic to parts of both sides.
/Fredrik