Hi Howard,

Thanks for your comments and the link to Appleby's paper. I agree that we shouldn't take the arbitrary cut as epistemologically satisfactory or final: theories may evolve, and this without embracing the ambition to explain everything within one theory. So the epistemic cut I'm talking about in the paper doesn't have to coincide with the Heisenberg-Dirac-von Neumann but between the observer and the observed in quantum mechanics.

Actually, I'm working myself on trying to understand the observer in informational terms, which has been missing from many reconstructions so far. I'm not sure I follow you when you add space and time as conditions under which measurements are "actually carried out". In my view, one of the key lessons of quantum theory is that it's free of space and time - and this is good! Non-locality means that we yet understand only very little about the connection between quantum theory and spatial structures; not to mention that time in quantum theory is only a parameter of algebra automorphisms.

Anyway, thanks for your comments - and thanks for your essay, too, which I read a month ago. I liked it, but I dislike very much the mad situation on this website and the rush for completely ungrounded ratings, so I'm quite unhappy with this contest and the way FQXI managed it. Had I known, I wouldn't have submitted anything in the first place. But for sure we'll see each other soon at some event and have a chance to talk.

Cheers,

Alexei

Looks like I jinxed you. Sorry about that. I really thought yours was one of the best essays on the topic.

Alexei

I am very disappointed not to see your name among the finalists and, because of this, I am embarrassed to be there myself. I sincerely thought that your essay was one of the very best if not the best in this contest. I saw your post above and you are right, the atmosphere here was not conducive for advancement of refined and sensitive people like yourself. But hopefully it will change one day.

-Marina

    Hi Alexei,

    Since now we ended up next to each other, and I read about your disappointment, I thought I should mention the following. This is my third FQXi contest (2nd, 3rd,5th) and it was getting worse and worse every time, until it *completely* deteriorated this time. And the reason is quite simple: complete neglect of the organization.

    The two fellows that started the FQXi shop (especially the "Scientific Director") wanted to have the contests for the sole PR purpose, and they have completely neglected their organization, which eventually led to the results you see. Their main interests are getting money (mainly from the Templeton Foundation) for the grants and fancy conferences free for the members.

    After the first two contests I participated in, I was so upset that I said to myself no more. But after an almost two-year break and seeing a topic I really liked, unfortunately, I decided to 'forget' about my previous experience.

    Anyway, enjoy the rest of the summer.

    Cheers,

    --Lev

    Write a Reply...