quantum mechanics: Kastner\'s brilliant blog (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, July 21, 2013, 16:31 (4144 days ago) @ rekastner

rekastner: The problem is that requiring agreement on a definition of 'knowledge' will land us in a thicket of quibbling about the definition, which (especially in view of the entire ongoing field of epistemology) is quite likely impenetrable. It depends on issues of meaning and truth that are entire industries in themselves.-You propose a possible definition: "knowledge is information the truth of which is recognized by general consensus among those aware of it" But that's heavily dependent on other terms whose definitions are elusive: 'information'; 'truth' ... and it also contains a social criterion. So it leads to us to a regress in which we must define these terms as well as the social conditions required for 'general consensus' ... and it rules out possible valid knowledge that isn't dependent on a social consensus.-Yes, the game can go on indefinitely, which is why we need to agree on a level, absolute or common sense. Since you have challenged my claim that non-spacetime realities cannot be known, we should explain to each other what we mean by "known". If I talk of information being true (illustrated with the example of the Earth going round the sun), I would hope that on a commonsense level you can understand what I mean. There is no social criterion in my definition ... it merely specifies those who are aware of the information, which can range from family matters to the cosmos. "Possible valid knowledge" is not knowledge! It is theory, as in your proposed substitute: "why don't we adopt a pragmatic approach on which well-corroborated theories can be taken as yielding (at least provisional) knowledge." You're using the word "knowledge" as if it had already been defined. Corroborated by whom? What are the criteria for corroboration? A theory remains a theory until it has been accepted by general consensus, and then we call it a fact which people can "know". This is as close to (unachievable) objectivity as we can get ... although my definition still leaves room for abandoning "a given claim if it comes into serious conflict with either evidence or logic". We could take evolution as an example of a theory which cannot be classified as knowledge, since so many people reject it. (I myself believe in common descent and natural selection, but am sceptical about Darwin's random mutations and gradualism.) I can't comment on your own theory, but it's clear from your disagreement with others in your field that there is no consensus. You may well be right, but the question we're discussing is whether there is any objective criterion whereby such theories can become established as a "known" fact by general consensus among those aware of them. I maintain that there is none.
 
In the exchanges between you and David, emphasis lies on potential realities and events, "Heisenbergian possibilities". You say QM "is at least a theory of the structure of those potentialities, even if we can't observe their material nature ... or even if they don't possess a material nature." David is looking for an avenue into a quantum version of his God (hence the emphasis on intelligence), a quantum explanation of NDEs and of other psychic phenomena. This is what interests me too. But I do not see how you will ever be able to claim "knowledge" of such immaterial "noumena" unless there really is a God who explains everything to us, or perhaps an afterlife in which our immaterial selves are able to conduct different tests in different non-spacetime dimensions. Your concept of knowledge seems to me to be virtually indistinguishable from belief, and this too is a slippery slope, as is all too evident from the distortions of both theistic and atheistic presentations of "evidence". You call your proposal a leap of faith. For me a leap of faith is acceptance of the fact that as three-dimensional, spacetime beings we can never "know" the ultimate truth about our origins or the true nature of reality, and yet we continue the quest in the hope of possible insights. That is why I deeply admire people like yourself and David, who go on searching and helping others in the search. It is also the reason why, in my own personal quest, I started this website. An even greater leap of faith is required, of course, if we are to believe any of the theories available to us, ranging from the God theory to that of materialism.-Thank you for your offer to send me the lectures. I will be delighted to accept, and I look forward to listening to the music. Thank you also for your patience with this stubborn layman!-****
This was drafted before I read Tony's (b_m's) post on the subject. He has once more put the case with admirable clarity. Incidentally, it's not often that he and I are on the same side. Thank you, Tony - and commiserations on the 84-hour week!