re: uncertainty

["Alan G. Isaac" <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

David,
While I am in general agreement with your
always perceptive comments on uncertainty,
I think you overplay the role of ontology
and ontological stances. (See my earlier
post.) Many different ontological stances
are compatible with epistemological uncertainty.
Ontological silliness can even be productive
(see my comments on mathematicians' platonic
ontology). As Bruce notes, what PKs need to
emphasize in epistemological uncertainty.
Their choice of metaphysical underpinnings
(i.e., religion) is not very important.
Alan Isaac


On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, David Dequech wrote:
> the
> notion of uncertainty always has an associated view of reality, and
> therefore has an ontological counterpart, given that ontology refers to the
> study of the nature of reality. Nonergodicity refers to an ontological
> characterization of the nature of reality and it is compatible with
> different conceptions of probability. Nonergodicity pertains, therefore, to
> the ontological side of the definition of uncertainty. This characterization
> of reality has implications in terms of what kind of knowledge people may or
> may not have of reality, and therefore it is also connected to epistemology'
> (p. 24).