Recently we proposed “quantum language, which was not only characterized as the metaphysical and linguistic turn of quantum mechanics but also the linguistic turn of Descartes=Kant epistemology. If this turn is regarded as progress in the history of Western philosophy, we should study the linguistic mind-body problem more than the epistemological mind-body problem. In this paper we show that to solve the mind-body problem and to propose measurement axiom in quantum language are equivalent. Since our approach is within dualistic idealism, we believe that our linguistic solution is the only true solution ( i.e., even if the other solutions exist, they are not in philosophy but in science).
Recently we proposed “quantum language, which was not only characterized as the metaphysical and linguistic turn of quantum mechanics but also the linguistic turn of Descartes=Kant epistemology. If this turn is regarded as progress in the history of Western philosophy, we should study the linguistic mind-body problem more than the epistemological mind-body problem. In this paper we show that to solve the mind-body problem and to propose measurement axiom in quantum language are equivalent. Since our approach is within dualistic idealism, we believe that our linguistic solution is the only true solution ( i.e., even if the other solutions exist, they are not in philosophy but in science).
Recently we proposed “quantum language”, which was not only characterized as the metaphysical and linguistic turn of quantum mechanics but also the linguistic turn of Descartes = Kant epistemology. And further we believe that quantum language is the only scientifically successful theory in dualistic idealism. If this turn is regarded as progress in the history of western philosophy (i.e., if “philosophical progress” is defined by “approaching to quantum language”), we should study the linguistic mind-body problem more than the epistemological mind-body problem. In this paper, we show that to solve the mind-body problem and to propose “measurement axiom” in quantum language are equivalent. Since our approach is always within dualistic idealism, we believe that our linguistic answer is the only true solution to the mind-body problem.
Recently, we proposed quantum language (in short, QL) as a mathematical realization of the quantum mechanical worldview. QL has the form of “axioms (measurement and causality)” + “linguistic Copenhagen interpretation”. And the quantum language can cover both quantum and classical systems. In this way, QL is one of the most powerful scientific theories beyond statistics, and I believe QL is the only dualism that has been scientifically successful. If so, the history of Western philosophy (mostly dualistic idealism) can be discussed from the quantum linguistic point of view. In this paper, we discuss the similarities between quantum language and Cartesian and Kantian epistemology. We conclude that “Axioms (measurement and causality)” can be characterized as a study belonging to Continental rationalism that sought to advance Descartes’s mind-body dualism. On the other hand, “linguistic Copenhagen interpretation” belongs to British empiricism (Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant), which can be characterized as the epistemological application of Descartes’s mind-body dualism. The conventional theory is that continental rationalism and British empiricism were synthesized by Kant. Therefore, I think it is necessary to weigh the usual conventional theory with our claims.
Recently we proposed the linguistic Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is called quantum language or measurement theory. This theory is valid for both quantum and classical systems. Thus, we think that quantum language is one of the most powerful scientific theories, like statistics, and thus, it is the scientific completion (i.e., the destination) of dualistic idealism. If so, we can introduce the concept “progress” in the dualistic idealism. For example, we can assert that [Plato → Descartes → Kant → Wittgenstein → quantum language], where [“X” → “Y”] means that “Y” is more like quantum language than “X”. In this paper, we will study the problem of universals from the perspective of quantum language (i.e., from the scientific perspective of ignoring any religious perspective). And we can be confident of the progress of both of the two time series [Plato → Anselmus → Thomas Aquinas → quantum language] and [Descartes → Thomas Aquinas → quantum language] in dualistic idealism. The reader may find it surprising that Scholastic philosophy is more scientific than Cartesian-Kantian philosophy. However, this is because Descartes gave up the pursuit of “universals” and presented dualism as a visible “mind-matter dualism” so that it could be familiar to the general public. This made the Cartesian-Kantian philosophy socially successful, but unscientific. The problem of universals has not always been clear in the long history of philosophy. The reader should be convinced that the reason is that the problem of universals has been discussed in an incomplete non-scientific dualism to this day.
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.
It is widely accepted that consciousness at the start of the 20th century was considered mainly in the context of neurology and the mind-body problem belonged to the domain of neuroscience, psychology and philosophy, later broadened by behavioural science and cognitive science. However, these disciplines cannot completely explain the correlation between mental activity and matter. \nChapter one starts by defining the difficulty of determining consciousness. A discussion of how philosophers (such as Descartes, Locke, Dennett and Nagel) attempted to describe this phenomenon leads to the conclusion that firstly, consciousness is indefinable and secondly, it continues to be a challenge for both – philosophy and science – to explain how subjective consciousness fits into the objective world. The following two parts of the chapter focus on the major philosophical theories of the mind-body problem. \nIn chapter two there is a focus on the mutual relation between philosophy and science, physics in particular. However, this project deals more with the implications of science for the philosophy of mind and mind-body problem than the science itself. The second enquiry of this chapter is to point out the difference in philosophical and scientific understanding of the word ‘substance’ (crucial to the mind-body problem). \nChapter three considers quantum theory, since the relation between mind and body started to be tackled from the completely new point of view, after the philosophers began to assimilate the implications of quantum physics. Firstly, there is a short introduction to quantum theory and the most significant points for philosophy and quantum mechanics issues are provided (such as quantum superposition, the measurement problem or the backward causation). Analysis of three prevailing theories is provided. \nThis project addresses the contribution of quantum mechanics to the studies of consciousness and matter and examines whether it helps in solving the mind-body problem.
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.