On The Philosophical Meaning of Observational Errors

Abstract

In Section 1 a definition of observational errors is given that is linked up with the postulates of uniqueness for the outer world and its physical laws.

In Section 2, coincidences of identifiable points in space or time are considered basic, but, for measurements, also the physical law is required. This leads to the question of speculation, i.e. the selection of the most satisfactory fundamental law among many that are tried out.

In Section 3, three models for a complete human being are put forward. The Descartes model, the dual model of soul and body that interact, is selected on account of its generality. This leads to the building up of the observational error from a number of well-known influences by imperfections in surroundings, body and soul. Such influences, in their interplay, give an insight in the meaning of observational errors that is the subject of the article.

Section 4 deals with the great reduction of the observational error by means of observing instruments and observing automatons. This makes for a closer approach to the ideal of the uniqueness postulates, though it certainly can never be reached for the law, on account of quantum indeterminacy.

Section 5 presents arguments supporting the Descartes model of Section 3 and against the other two models, that of the materialist and the parallelist. The chief argument is that of telepathy where Vasiliev’s experiments that exclude radiation deserve particular notice. An explanation of such telepathic experiments is offered by an extended Descartes model, replacing partial independence of body and soul by complete independence under certain circumstances.