The philosophy of science is a discipline concerning the metaphysical aspect of science. Recently, I proposed measurement theory, which is characterized as the metaphysical and linguistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. I assert that this theory is one of the most fundamental languages in science, and thus, it is located at the central position in science. This assertion will be examined throughout this preprint, which is written as the draft of my future book (concerning the philosophy of science). Hence, I hope to hear various opinions about this draft.
The philosophy of science is a discipline concerning the metaphysical aspect of science. Recently, I proposed measurement theory, which is characterized as the metaphysical and linguistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. I assert that this theory is one of the most fundamental languages in science, and thus, it is located at the central position in science. This assertion will be examined throughout this preprint, which is written as the draft of my future book (concerning the philosophy of science). Hence, I hope to hear various opinions about this draft.
Recently we proposed "quantum language" (or, "the linguistic Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics", "measurement theory") as the language of science.This theory asserts the probabilistic interpretation of science (=the linguistic quantum mechanical worldview), which is a kind of mathematical generalization of Born's probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics.In this paper, we consider the most fundamental problems in philosophy of science such as Hempel's raven paradox, Hume's problem of induction, Goodman's grue paradox, Peirce's abduction, flagpole problem, which are closely related to measurement.We believe that these problems can never be solved without the basic theory of science with axioms.Since our worldview (=quantum language) has the axiom concerning measurement, these problems can be solved easily.Thus we believe that quantum language is the central theory in philosophy of science.Hence there is a reason to assert that quantum language gives the mathematical foundations to science.
Recently we proposed “a new interpretation of quantum mechanics (called quantum and classical measurement theory)” in this journal (JQIS: Vol. 1, No. 2), which was characterized as the metaphysical and linguistic turn of quantum mechanics. This turn from physics to language does not only realize the remarkable extension of quantum mechanics but also yield the quantum mechanical world view (i.e., the philosophy of quantum mechanics). And thus, the turn urges us to dream that traditional philosophies (i.e., Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, John Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Saussure, Wittgenstein, etc.) can be understood in the quantum mechanical world view. This dream will be challenged in this paper. We, of course, know that most scientists are skeptical to philosophy. Still, we can expect that readers find a good linguistic philosophy (i.e. philosophy of language) in quantum mechanics.
In quantum mechanics, the measurement problem is commonly regarded as reason for deep concern. It seems that, either, the problem can be solved and there is hope for quantum mechanics, or the theory better be left behind in search of another one. We investigate the prospect of finding a solution to the measurement problem—within quantum mechanics, as well as in theoretical frameworks beyond it. As we do so, there emerges a perspective on doing physics drawing from considerations in the philosophy of language and in epistemology. Developing this perspective for further aspects in physics reveals: The notion of a system is similarly problematic. Eventually, the question arises whether these are problems of specific physical theories, or rather of specific stances towards physics. In this regard, we examine in particular the role and understanding of assumptions.
The term measurement theory refers to that part of a physical theory in which the empirical and operational content of the concepts of the theory is determined. Measurements are analyzed both as operational procedures defining the → observables of the theory and as physical processes which are themselves subject to the laws of physics. In classical physics, measurements are performed in order to deter-mine the values of one or several observables of the physical system un-der consideration. Classical physics allowed the idealized notion that every physical quantity has a definite value at any time, and that this value can be determined with certainty by measurement without influ-encing the object system in a significant way. By contrast, in quantum mechanics both features fail to hold without strong qualifications. Ac-cordingly, in their seminal paper of 1935 [1], Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen used elements of this description as a sufficient criterion of phys-ical reality, applicable both in classical and quantum mechanics:
There is a very reason to consider that to solve Zeno's paradoxes is to propose the theory of mechanical world view. We believe that this is not only our opinion but also most philosophers' opinion. Recently, in order to justify Heisenberg`s uncertainty principle (cf. Rep. Math. Phys Vol. 29, No. 3, 1991) more firmly. we proposed the linguistic interpretation of quantum mechanics (called quantum and classical measurement theory), which was characterized as the metaphysical and linguistic turn of the Copenhagen interpretation. This turn from physics to language does not only extend quantum mechanicsto classical systems but also yield the (quantum and classical) mechanical world view (and therefore, establish the method of science). If it be so, we may assert that Zeno's paradoxes (Flying Arrow Paradox, Achilles and the tortoise, etc.) were already solved in measurement theory. The purpose of this paper is to examine this assertion.
Although the title of this focus issue is ‘The Possibility of Metaphysics’ the first part has as its focus not only metaphysics in general but Buddhist metaphysics in particular. This is because the motivation for this focus issue was sparked by an email from a colleague who asked for my opinion of a book written by Robert Ellis. The aspect of the ‘experimental metaphysics’ of quantum theory is examined in detail in the first article "The Matter of Mindnature" The Buddhist metaphysical viewpoint tells as the nature of ultimate reality is best understood as a fundamentally interrelated and interpenetrating field of Mind-like energy, or Mindnature, and such a view is clearly supported by the quantum violation of Bell’s inequalities. In this article I examine Ellis’s notion of the impossibility of metaphysics in the light of both philosophical considerations and the implications of the quantum evidence. The next article "Taking the‘Meta’ Out of Physics" is Ellis’s response to my criticisms of his work. I leave it to readers to come to conclusions without further comment from me. It is my hope that there will be feedback concerning the issues raised as I am personally convinced that Ellis’s position is untenable but am curious to know whether my viewpoint is widely held. Certainly the last two articles from James Kowall, ‘What is Reality in a Holographic World?’, and Brian Whitworth, ‘Introducing The Virtual Reality Conjecture’, seem to support my position.