Dialogue in the crisis of representation : realism and antirealism in the context of the conversation between theologians and quantum physicists in Göttingen 1949-1961

The aim of this study is to analyse the content of the interdisciplinary conversations in Göttingen between 1949 and 1961. The task is to compare models for describing reality presented by quantum physicists and theologians. Descriptions of reality indifferent disciplines are conditioned by the development of the concept of reality in philosophy, physics and theology. Our basic problem is stated in the question: How is it possible for the intramental image to match the external object?Cartesian knowledge presupposes clear and distinct ideas in the mind prior to observation resulting in a true correspondence between the observed object and the cogitative observing subject. The Kantian synthesis between rationalism and empiricism emphasises an extended character of representation. The human mind is not a passive receiver of external information, but is actively construing intramental representations of external reality in the epistemological process. Heidegger's aim was to reach a more primordial mode of understanding reality than what is possible in the Cartesian Subject-Object distinction. In Heidegger's philosophy, ontology as being-in-the-world is prior to knowledge concerning being. Ontology can be grasped only in the totality of being (Dasein), not only as an object of reflection and perception. According to Bohr, quantum mechanics introduces an irreducible loss in representation, which classically understood is a deficiency in knowledge. The conflicting aspects (particle and wave pictures) in our comprehension of physical reality, cannot be completely accommodated into an entire and coherent model of reality. What Bohr rejects is not realism, but the classical Einsteinian version of it. By the use of complementary descriptions, Bohr tries to save a fundamentally realistic position. The fundamental question in Barthian theology is the problem of God as an object of theological discourse. Dialectics is Barth¿s way to express knowledge of God avoiding a speculative theology and a human-centred religious self-consciousness. In Barthian theology, the human capacity for knowledge, independently of revelation, is insufficient to comprehend the being of God. Our knowledge of God is real knowledge in revelation and our words are made to correspond with the divine reality in an analogy of faith. The point of the Bultmannian demythologising programme was to claim the real existence of God beyond our faculties. We cannot simply define God as a human ideal of existence or a focus of values. The theological programme of Bultmann emphasised the notion that we can talk meaningfully of God only insofar as we have existential experience of his intervention. Common to all these twentieth century philosophical, physical and theological positions, is a form of anti-Cartesianism. Consequently, in regard to their epistemology, they can be labelled antirealist. This common insight also made it possible to find a common meeting point between the different disciplines. In this study, the different standpoints from all three areas and the conversations in Göttingen are analysed in the frameworkof realism/antirealism. One of the first tasks in the Göttingen conversations was to analyse the nature of the likeness between the complementary structures inquantum physics introduced by Niels Bohr and the dialectical forms in the Barthian doctrine of God. The reaction against epistemological Cartesianism, metaphysics of substance and deterministic description of reality was the common point of departure for theologians and physicists in the Göttingen discussions. In his complementarity, Bohr anticipated the crossing of traditional epistemic boundaries and the generalisation of epistemological strategies by introducing interpretative procedures across various disciplines.

The Child Occupational Self Assessment (COSA, version 2.1) : lasten toimintamahdollisuuksien itsearviointi COSA:n esittely ja suomentamisprosessi

Tämän opinnäytetyön tarkoituksena on aloittaa lapsille ja nuorille suunnatun The Child Occupational Self Assessment (COSA, version 2.1) itsearviointimenetelmän suomenkielisen version käännöstyö. COSA on asiakaslähtöinen itsearviointi, jolla kartoitetaan lasten ja nuorten kokemusta toiminnallisesta pätevyydestään ja jokapäiväisten toimintojen tärkeydestä heille. COSA pohjaa Inhimillisen toiminnan malliin ja sen toteutus seuraa asiakaslähtöistä teoriaa. COSA:n avulla voidaan asettaa toimintaterapialle tavoitteet ja tarkastella niiden toteutumista. Työssämme suomennamme arviointimenetelmän nimen muotoon; Lasten toimintamahdollisuuksien itsearviointi COSA. Arviointimenetelmän käännöstyö tehdään Helsingin ammattikorkeakoulu Stadian toimintaterapian koulutusohjelmalle. Opinnäytetyössä esittelemme ensin arviointia ja tavoitteiden asettamista lasten toimintaterapiassa sekä itsearvioinnin käyttämistä arviointimenetelmänä. Esittelemme COSA itsearviointimenetelmän sekä sen taustalla vaikuttavat Inhimillisen toiminnan mallin sisällön ja asiakaslähtöisyyden. Kartoitamme myös The Child Occupational Self Assessment (COSA, version 2.1 )itsearviointimenetelmän kehittymistä, sitä edeltäneitä arviointimenetelmiä ja COSA:sta aiemmin tehtyjä tutkimuksia. Opinnäytetyössä suomennamme COSA:n arviointilomakkeen. Arviointilomakkeessa on 25 lasten ja nuorten toiminnallista pätevyyttä ja jokapäiväisten toimintojen tärkeyttä kartoittava väittämää. Suomentamisprosessissa selvitämme COSA:n arviointilomakkeen väittämien suomennosten ymmärrettävyyden onnistumista kahdeksan käyttökokeiluun ja haastatteluun osallistuvan lapsen avulla. Saimme arviointilomakkeen suomentamisprosessiin apua neljältä lasten kanssa työskentelevältä toimintaterapeutilta sekä koulutusohjelmamme koulutuspäälliköltä. Käyttökokeiluiden sekä toimintaterapeuttien palautteiden avulla viimeistelimme suomennetun arviointilomakkeen väittämät. Opinnäytetyön lopuksi pohdimme arviointilomakkeen suomentamisprosessin vaiheita sekä mahdollisia jatkotutkimusehdotuksia. Luovutimme Lasten toimintamahdollisuuksien itsearviointi COSA:n arviointilomakkeen koulutusohjelmamme käyttöön ja mahdollisten jatkotutkimusten kohteeksi.

Predicting diffusion of innovations with self-organisation and machine learning

The main subject of this master's thesis was predicting diffusion of innovations. The prediction was done in a special case: product has been available in some countries, and based on its diffusion in those countries the prediction is done for other countries. The prediction was based on finding similar countries with Self-Organizing Map~(SOM), using parameters of countries. Parameters included various economical and social key figures. SOM was optimised for different products using two different methods: (a) by adding diffusion information of products to the country parameters, and (b) by weighting the country parameters based on their importance for the diffusion of different products. A novel method using Differential Evolution (DE) was developed to solve the latter, highly non-linear optimisation problem. Results were fairly good. The prediction method seems to be on a solid theoretical foundation. The results based on country data were good. Instead, optimisation for different products did not generally offer clear benefit, but in some cases the improvement was clearly noticeable. The weights found for the parameters of the countries with the developed SOM optimisation method were interesting, and most of them could be explained by properties of the products.