This article focuses on the problem of the authenticity of knowledge. It argues that the failure to integrate the observer into the act of observing is the main source of the disagreements and divisions in contemporary science and scholarship. The article uses the quantum debate as a case study to illustrate this point. It also argues that a truly non-classical epistemology should abandon the traditional subject-object orientation and focus on the very process of construction which creates both the subject and the object. The understanding of this process in terms of the equilibrium between equilibrium and disequilibrium will be critical for such epistemological perspective. The article concludes with some illustrations that show how the new perspective can help resolve the paradoxes which plague contemporary knowledge. Key words: the quantum debate, non-classical epistemology, paradox of observing
This article focuses on the problem of the authenticity of knowledge. It argues that the failure to integrate the observer into the act of observing is the main source of the disagreements and divisions in contemporary science and scholarship. The article uses the quantum debate as a case study to illustrate this point. It also argues that a truly non-classical epistemology should abandon the traditional subject-object orientation and focus on the very process of construction which creates both the subject and the object. The understanding of this process in terms of the equilibrium between equilibrium and disequilibrium will be critical for such epistemological perspective. The article concludes with some illustrations that show how the new perspective can help resolve the paradoxes which plague contemporary knowledge. Key words: the quantum debate, non-classical epistemology, paradox of observing
The text points out that one of the main contradictions of quantum realism, which is particularly relevant to the social sciences, is the tension between the existence of an observer-independent reality and the idea that this reality is mediated by the cognitive and interpretative processes of the subject. This contradiction arises from the central role of the observer in phenomena such as the collapse of the wave function and their influence on the construction of reality, which challenges the classical notion of an objective, non-perceptual nature. Moreover, the encounter between social realism and socialinterpretivism lies in the fact that, in the social sciences, it is also recognized that human interpretations and actions shape social reality, creating a scenario in which absolute objectivity becomes difficult to sustain. These tensions, therefore enrich the epistemological and ontological debate, showing that the contradictions of quantum realism transcend physics and connect deeply with the difficulties and dynamics of the social construction of reality.
The text points out that one of the main contradictions of quantum realism, which is particularly relevant to the social sciences, is the tension between the existence of an observer-independent reality and the idea that this reality is mediated by the cognitive and interpretative processes of the subject. This contradiction arises from the central role of the observer in phenomena such as the collapse of the wave function and their influence on the construction of reality, which challenges the classical notion of an objective, non-perceptual nature. Moreover, the encounter between social realism and social interpretivism lies in the fact that, in the social sciences, it is also recognized that human interpretations and actions shape social reality, creating a scenario in which absolute objectivity becomes difficult to sustain. These tensions, therefore enrich the epistemological and ontological debate, showing that the contradictions of quantum realism transcend physics and connect deeply with the difficulties and dynamics of the social construction of reality.
The text points out that one of the main contradictions of quantum realism, which is particularly relevant to the social sciences, is the tension between the existence of an observer-independent reality and the idea that this reality is mediated by the cognitive and interpretative processes of the subject. This contradiction arises from the central role of the observer in phenomena such as the collapse of the wave function and their influence on the construction of reality, which challenges the classical notion of an objective, non-perceptual nature. Moreover, the encounter between social realism and socialinterpretivism lies in the fact that, in the social sciences, it is also recognized that human interpretations and actions shape social reality, creating a scenario in which absolute objectivity becomes difficult to sustain. These tensions, therefore enrich the epistemological and ontological debate, showing that the contradictions of quantum realism transcend physics and connect deeply with the difficulties and dynamics of the social construction of reality.
This study examines the epistemological implications of competinginterpretations of quantum states, focusing on the distinction between epistemicand ontological accounts of the wave function (Harrigan & Spekkens, 2010).Rather than treating interpretative disputes as purely metaphysical, this studyanalyses the extent to which quantum theory constrains, enables or underminesclaims to knowledge about physical reality (van Fraassen, 2008). By situatingthe epistemic–ontological debate within broader discussions of realism,objectivity and scientific explanation, this study argues that quantum theorynecessitates a reconceptualisation of epistemic access to reality (O’Neill,1997). Particular attention is given to the roles of uncertainty, contextuality andobserver-dependence in shaping the epistemic limits of quantum physics (Bohr,1935). The article concludes by proposing a moderate epistemic realism thatpreserves empirical objectivity while acknowledging principled limits onontological transparency (Healey, 2017).
This article examines the epistemological views of key quantum physicists of the Copenhagen circle (Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and Léon Rosenfeld). The discussion begins with a presentation of their conception of measurement, indeterminacy and complementarity, and goes on to focus on their views regarding the nature of being and knowledge. The author identifies the basic areas of consensus in the Copenhagen circle as well as the disagreements and disputes that arose between its members. Three main points are argued: (1) The fundamental epistemological consensus in the group was that subject and object are inseparable; that the subject participates in the formation of images of reality, which are multiple and depend on how the subject is concretely constituted historically; the disagreements within the group did not arise with logical inevitability from the principles of quantum mechanics but largely stemmed from ideological clash in the Cold War context. (2) Being linked to specific configurations of the subjects, knowledge is always relative; but it does not follow that knowledge is illusory or inadequate; on the contrary, it is the pretension of attaining the ultimate nature of things “in themselves” that leads to devaluation of any concrete knowledge. (3) The world is something external, generally independent of our desires and will, but at the same time is constructed as concrete objects through the specific configuration of each concrete subject.
The so-called "measurement problem" in quantum mechanics, which asks about the physical mechanism of wave function collapse and the role of the observer, is presented here not as a theoretical enigma to be solved, but as a pseudo-problem generated by a double categorial error. The first is the projection of a mesoscopic epistemological expectation—the demand for a classical, continuous ontological narrative—onto a formal domain where it does not apply. The second is the reification of first-person subjective experience as a causal actor within physical dynamics. By diagnosing these errors, the traditional problem dissolves. In its place, the program of structural-operative understanding is proposed, redirecting inquiry toward the legitimate scientific question: how do stable, objective, and consensual correlations—what we call "classical facts"—emerge from unitary dynamics and quantum entanglement? This program, already active in decoherence and quantum information theory, redefines "understanding" as architectural mastery of the formalism and predictive-technological competence. It is concluded that quantum mechanics compels an epistemological maturity where deep scientific understanding can be non-narrative and reside in successful interaction with the theory's formal structures.