The intention of this paper is not to build quantum metaphysics but to justify the possibility of a second game through interpreting the ideas, concepts and visions from actual physics with ideas and visions borrowed from physics of the Orient. We are aware that quantum metaphysics is far from Abhinavagupta’s metaphysics. After Culianu we introduce both visions in a deforming grid to build a new ideational universe. This ideational universe is a transmodern construction, which tends to become topical in the context of transdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity prevalence. Characterization of thinking as theory and determination of knowledge as a theoretical approach takes place in a inwardly beginning of the technical interpretation of thinking. There is an attempt to keep a sense of reason independently towards action. Philosophy is always in the critical situation to justify its existence to science. The safest way to do this is by self-establishing itself as science. But this effort represents the sacrifice of the essence of knowledge: “in the technical interpretation of thinking, the being as self element of thinking is sacrificed (Hidegger, 1988:314)”. To look positively to philosophy as a dodge of science from metaphysics proves not only destructive to philosophy but also harmful to science. Absolute objectivity claims are increasingly refuted by the development of the cognitive approach. Not only social and human sciences require subjectivity as a dimension of objective knowledge, but physics itself considered the hard part of science reaches to formulate indeterminacy (uncertainty) principles. A new perspective that might be required in the philosophy of science is to look at it as to a semiotics of cognitive act.
The intention of this paper is not to build quantum metaphysics but to justify the possibility of a second game through interpreting the ideas, concepts and visions from actual physics with ideas and visions borrowed from physics of the Orient. We are aware that quantum metaphysics is far from Abhinavagupta’s metaphysics. After Culianu we introduce both visions in a deforming grid to build a new ideational universe. This ideational universe is a transmodern construction, which tends to become topical in the context of transdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity prevalence. Characterization of thinking as theory and determination of knowledge as a theoretical approach takes place in a inwardly beginning of the technical interpretation of thinking. There is an attempt to keep a sense of reason independently towards action. Philosophy is always in the critical situation to justify its existence to science. The safest way to do this is by self-establishing itself as science. But this effort represents the sacrifice of the essence of knowledge: “in the technical interpretation of thinking, the being as self element of thinking is sacrificed (Hidegger, 1988:314)”. To look positively to philosophy as a dodge of science from metaphysics proves not only destructive to philosophy but also harmful to science. Absolute objectivity claims are increasingly refuted by the development of the cognitive approach. Not only social and human sciences require subjectivity as a dimension of objective knowledge, but physics itself considered the hard part of science reaches to formulate indeterminacy (uncertainty) principles. A new perspective that might be required in the philosophy of science is to look at it as to a semiotics of cognitive act.
Metaphysics, as discipline dealing with the most fundamental aspects of reality, studies the essence of entities, leaving to particular sciences the study of empirical, specific, changeable and unstable aspects. In this sense metaphysics is close to ontology, tackling problems as the existence of God, the being in himself, the immortality of consciousness, the origin and meaning of the universe. Speculative physics pushes its interest to metaphysical questions too, both at atechnical (mathematical) level, and at the level of thought (in relation to philosophy). In recentyears interesting concepts and ideas have been considered and developed, involving the latest unified quantum-relativistic theories and the consequences on reality deriving from them.The search for a meaning of life, one of Anscombe’s themes, finds ferment in the search for meaning about the existence of our universe in itself and as a possible part of a multiverse containing it.The problem of measurement in quantum mechanics appears from the application of themathematical formalism to macroscopic situations and the central position of the observer in this process has produced a deviation towards a metaphysical subjectivism. There are controversial aspects about the role of consciousness in the process of reducing the wave function of quantum mechanics. This narrows the field of validity of some fundamental principles during the interaction between microsystems and macrosystems, with consequent diversification of thedefinition of the ontological state of consciousness and reality. (Local) holism has often been linked to Wittgenstein. From Wittgenstein’s answers to the paradoxes of communication and conceptual relativism, a tension emerges in his vision of linguistic games and in his mental experiments, traditionally interpreted in contrasting ways. This tension can be better understoodthrough some reflections by Wittgenstein on Einstein and his theory of relativity.
Abstract Metaphysicians should pay attention to quantum mechanics, but not because it provides definitive answers to many metaphysical questions. The theory itself is remarkably silent on the nature of the physical world, and the various interpretations of the theory on offer present conflicting ontological pictures. Rather, quantum mechanics is essential to the metaphysician because it reshapes standard metaphysical debates and opens up unforeseen new metaphysical possibilities. Even if quantum mechanics provides few clear answers, there are good reasons to think that any adequate understanding of the quantum world will result in a radical reshaping of our classical worldview in some way or other. Whatever the world is like at the atomic scale, it is almost certainly not the swarm of particles pushed around by forces that is often presupposed. This book guides readers through the theory of quantum mechanics and its implications for metaphysics in a clear and accessible way. The theory and its various interpretations are presented with a minimum of technicality. The consequences of these interpretations for metaphysical debates concerning realism, indeterminacy, causation, determinism, holism, and individuality (among other topics) are explored in detail, stressing the novel form that the debates take given the empirical facts in the quantum domain. While quantum mechanics may not deliver unconditional pronouncements on these issues, the range of possibilities consistent with our knowledge of the empirical world is relatively small—and each possibility is metaphysically revisionary in some way.
Although this book is about the implications for social science of a quantum approach to the mind, much of that potential stems from its ability to integrate consciousness – a particular aspect of the mind – into a naturalistic worldview. And when it comes to the hard problem, quantum brain theory is only a necessary condition for such integration, not sufficient. Necessary, because it would enable the body to exploit for macro-level purposes a physical but non- material space for consciousness at the quantum level – collapse of the wave function – that does not exist in classical physics. Insufficient, however, because quantum brain theory embodies an objective, third-person standpoint and as such can tell us no more than classical brain theory can about why brains have a subjective, first-person point of view in the first place. The explanatory gap is still there, in other words, only now pushed down into quantum theory. To cross this gap, therefore, in addition to a new physics of the brain we will need a new meta -physics as well. As I argue in this chapter, it is this metaphysics that does the real work in solving the mind–body problem. Most social scientists have an instinctive aversion to ‘metaphysics,’ which in our world connotes wooly-headed and speculative thinking that has no place in science. Yet in moving onto this terrain the situation is both worse and better than that. It is worse because we have no choice. The Neuron Doctrine itself is based on a metaphysic, materialism, which looks increasingly unlikely to ever explain consciousness; and in thinking about the meaning of quantum theory metaphysical debate can hardly be avoided, precisely because physics provides little guidance for choosing among its interpretations. So the only question is whether to change our metaphysics of the brain from classical to quantum.
In this project I am going to explore how the boundaries of our reality are conditioned by metaphysical principles. I will argue, in the spirit of Immanuel Kant, that these metaphysical principles also ground our knowledge and description of the natural sciences, and more specifically, within quantum physics. My main objective is to study the framework of our cognition of knowledge along the lines of model-dependent reality. We will see why in the science of physics, a paradigm shift was needed to be able to expand and account for new knowledge, along with novel discoveries. This newer theory of knowledge and newer framework, being quantum theory, reflects that our objective knowledge must always contain an element of the subjective observer. This leads us to re-think what we understand to be ‘objective’ reality. The so-called human standpoint becomes one of the main themes in this thesis, then. When we ask ourselves, “Where does reality begin and where does it end? What are the limits to our reality?” – I shall argue that it both starts and ends with the transcendental subject, as this specific subject is what conditions our experience, and is found at the boundaries of our reality. Thus, in thesis I will ultimately argue for a different notion of objective knowledge because of what sets the boundaries of our reality.
I am very grateful to the Master and Fellows of Trinity College for inviting me to give the Tarner Lectures. What I want to do in this book, stated boldly and baldly, is to consider the relevance of developments in modern theoretical physics to metaphysical questions about the ultimate nature of reality. By metaphysical questions I mean the very general sorts of questions that arise out of a critical examination of the principles, concepts and fundamental presuppositions that lie behind modern physics. How should we interpret the claims that physicists seem to be making about the world? Are they intended to be understood as literally true, for example, and exactly what are those claims, given that the pages of theoretical physics monographs are largely filled with abstract mathematical formalism? In the first chapter, I shall be looking at a range of philosophical points of view in the framework of which such questions can be addressed, and attempt the difficult task of adjudicating between the different approaches. At the end of the day I shall be arguing for a pretty straightforward metaphysical realism, that the external world exists independently of our knowledge of it. In the second chapter I shall look at arguments from various branches of modern physics that are sometimes claimed to bring in an essential role for subjectivity in physics, bringing the observer into a central role, creating his own reality.
This work presents a conceptual and interdisciplinary framework exploring parallels between quantum measurement theory, human cognition, and metaphysical causality. Rather than proposing an experimental or testable physical model, the paper develops a theoretical interpretation that uses established quantum concepts—such as superposition, collapse, observation, and tunneling—as structural analogies for understanding human decision-making, regret, and the perceived limits of self-driven agency. The framework introduces the notion of a “Divine Collapse Point (DCP)” as a metaphysical boundary condition, representing the moment at which intentional effort and analytical reasoning reach their conceptual limits. At this point, the model suggests a transition beyond classical notions of control and causality, interpreted philosophically rather than physically. Regret is reframed as a cognitive indicator of collapse, marking the exhaustion of internally generated possibilities rather than a psychological failure. This paper is positioned within the domains of philosophy of science, consciousness studies, and conceptual interpretations of quantum mechanics. It does not claim empirical validation, predictive power, or experimental confirmation. Instead, it aims to provide a coherent language for discussing observation, limitation, and surrender across scientific, cognitive, and metaphysical contexts. The work also contributes to the ongoing development of Javed’s Quantum Thought, a conceptual approach that interprets quantum principles as reflective structures within human cognition and existential experience.