The article is devoted to the interpretation of the concept of “reality”, as well as its methodological representation in physics and psychology. The authors discuss this issue as a transition in the description of the world from the language of wave processes with cohesion, which says unconscious, subject to the language of consciousness, where description is constructed in the space-time of Descartes.
The article is devoted to the interpretation of the concept of “reality”, as well as its methodological representation in physics and psychology. The authors discuss this issue as a transition in the description of the world from the language of wave processes with cohesion, which says unconscious, subject to the language of consciousness, where description is constructed in the space-time of Descartes.
Today, many concepts from the dictionaries of academic psychology have entered the language of everyday communication. Perhaps the most common are the concepts of «subjective» and «objective». In many textbooks of psychology, «objective» is understood as something that belongs to the object itself, something that does not depend on the subject. The objective is opposed to the subjective-personal. Experimental research in the field of quantum physics questioned the division of the world into an impartial «objective reality» and its «subjective» (not impartial, biased) reflection, which provoked a crisis in this field of knowledge and the methodology of science as a whole. The main methodological problems of psychology are the question of the place of the mental in nature; on the relationship of mental and material phenomena, on the possibilities of human cognition - questions that also arose in the depths of quantum physics and were predetermined by the internal logic of their development. An excursion into quantum physics was necessary, firstly, for a deep understanding that reality is given to us in our sensations, perceptions, ideas and mental constructs (this was evidenced by the so-called «double slit experiment» and its interpretations) and we cannot say anything about reality as it is «in itself»; secondly, the realization that the foundations on which our knowledge is built differ from those in quantum physics. Currently, there is a dichotomy between material (physical) and conceptual reality. Thus, the principle of locality, which professes ordinary consciousness and according to which specific objects occupy a specific place in time and space, contradicts the principle of non-locality, according to which isolated systems do not exist at all and every particle of the universe is in «instantaneous» communication with all other particles. The world is created from the same quantum substance and it is impossible to say that one is the cause of the other. (This statement implies, in particular, a rethinking of the «principle of determinism» which requires the establishment of unambiguous causal relationships). The reality in which we live is not quantum, our language and stereotypes of thinking do not correspond to the nature of the phenomena described by quantum physics. It is about the deep properties of matter. Personally, I got the impression that the deeper you plunge into the world of atomic and subatomic, the more the outlines of the specific, material world familiar to us become blurred and the thinner the line between the physical and conceptual world, between the material and the spiritual becomes. The purpose of this article is to define the concepts of "objective" and "subjective" based on the analysis of achievements in quantum physics in the context of psychology.
Since the beginning of the XXI st century, there has been a process of intense convergence and interpenetration of two seemingly opposing sciences – quantum mechanics and psychology. In accordance with it, the question arises about a common methodological foundation for these sciences. The article shows that the “first philosophy” of Aristotle can serve as a general philosophical methodology for these sciences. In the context of the metaphysical triad necessarypossible-real, the “intersection points” of A. I. Mirakyan’s transcendental psychology and A. Yu. Sevalnikov’s interpretation of quantum mechanics. The article examines the features of the formation of a new direction in modern psychology, which studies the problem of mental phenomena generation. At the same time, a comparison is made with the transcendentalism of Descartes, in which its limitations and incompleteness are revealed. It is shown that both in transcendental psychology and in quantum mechanics (W. Heisenberg) epistemological problems arise associated with the impossibility of using the language of their classical predecessors. In both sciences, it becomes necessary to apply a new language, a new way of thinking and a new logic of understanding the phenomena under study. All this allows us to conclude that both in transcendental psychology and in quantum mechanics, researchers are dealing with a new ontology of reality that differs from the reality studied in classical physics and in the phenomenology of classical psychology. The article substantiates that the main methodological reason limiting the possibilities of carrying out theoretical studies of deeper layers of reality is the use of the product (physical) approach. The product approach is based on the language used to describe the observed reality. It became necessary to divide reality into observable and unobservable. In the language of metaphysics of modalities, this is translated as «being in possibility» and «being in reality.» One of the “intersection points” of quantum mechanics and transcendental psychology is the category ofpossibility, in which the essence of reality is expressed, which both disciplines compared in this article seek to describe and explain
The present study is concerned with the problem of realism in quantum mechanics. Contrary to the prevailing view that quantum mechanics forces us to abandon the concept of realism and reality, the author attempts to substantiate another standpoint. Quantum objects indeed exist in a different way from classical bodies. Before the act of measurement begins, one cannot attribute any specific properties to the quantum object observed, as they only occur in the course observation. The concept of observation, however, should not be interpreted as the inclusion of subjective traits in the description of nature. Observation records processes in space and time and establishes the fact of transition from the potential to the reality. The potential is described by a wave function, which in its meaning does not fall in the habitual space and time, whereas the actual is described in terms of a reduction of the wave function, i.e. the transition from a range of possible states to the single one, the observed. Whatever has been observed, in contrast, already belongs to ordinary space and time and can be detected. What follows is that, in quantum mechanics, it is the notion of reality which needs to be reconsidered, not the realism as such rejected. A reconsideration of this sort is conducted here within the framework of a double-modus picture of reality including both potential and actual being, where the quantum level of existence is distinguished from the observed modi of being as described by means of classical concepts. Such a scheme can be described in terms of Aristotelian metaphysics (the fact first pointed out by Heisenberg). The act of transition from potential to actual can be accounted for both in the language of Aristotle’s metaphysics and the language of modern science. In traditional metaphysics it is called the 'principle of individuation', while in modern science it is known as the extended Mach principle. It is argued that the development of these ideas leads to the rejection of Cartesian paradigm in which the existence of a material object always means an existence in space and time.
The article proposes a philosophical and ontological interpretation of the concept of the “quantum” as a symbolic and structural image of the One Being. Drawing on quantum physics, philosophy of science, and the works of S. Lem and A. Tarkovsky, it argues that quantum reality can be understood not only as a physical model of the micro-world, but also as an epistemological mirror reflecting the structure of human consciousness. The paper demonstrates the inseparable relation between observer and observed as a fundamental principle of reality that transcends classical dualistic ontology. It concludes that the concept of truth must be reconsidered in terms of wholeness and ontological unity. ___________________________________ Статья предлагает философско-онтологическую интерпретацию понятия «квант» как символа и структурного образа Единого Бытия. На основе синтеза идей квантовой физики, философии науки и анализа художественных произведений С. Лема и А. Тарковского показано, что квантовая реальность может быть осмыслена не только как физическая модель микромира, но и как эпистемологическое зеркало, отражающее структуру человеческого сознания. Обосновывается положение о неразрывной связи наблюдателя и наблюдаемого как фундаментальном принципе реальности, выходящем за пределы классической дуалистической онтологии. Делается вывод о необходимости переосмысления понятия истины в терминах целостности и онтологического единства.
A number of modern scientists adheres to the point of view that, despite the fact that quantum mechanics does not allow to explain the existence of mental phenomena in the physical world, with the help of its inherent ontological principles and mathematical formalism, it is possible to understand the functioning of consciousness and the unconscious. Based on the analogy between quantum and mental processes, the unconscious can be represented as a superposition of mental states, and consciousness — in the form of decoherence of unconscious experiences. From an evolutionary point of view, consciousness can be considered as a consequence of the accumulation of a sufficient amount of information during the interaction of the organism with the surrounding environment, when the transition from the quantum state of the unconscious to the classical state of consciousness is carried out at the psychic level of being, by analogy with the accumulation of a sufficient amount of information by a quantum system during interaction with the environment, when at the physical level of being the collapse of the wave function. In psychotherapy and psychodiagnostics, one can see an analogy with the measurement process in quantum mechanics and a quantum leap from one mental state to another. However, the analysis of this point of view carried out in the article shows that the parallels between quantum mechanics and psychology today look insufficiently substantiated, since the mathematical model of the psyche, which allows describing human behavior on the basis of the laws of quantum mechanics, has not yet been built, which is why, firstly, the use of quantum-physical terminology in the understanding of mental experience does not rise to the level of scientific theory, remaining a metaphor, and, secondly, quantum psychology has a predictive potential, in contrast to the psychology of the classical type.
This article is a continuation of the previous one, published in this journal under the same title. The article continues the theoretical consideration of signs of the unity of transcendental psychology (TP) and quantum mechanics (QM) in the vision of Aristotle's metaphysics. In the context of the metaphysical triad necessary-possible-real, the «intersection points» of A. I. Mirakyan’s transcendental psychology and the interpretation of quantum mechanics by A. Yu. Sevalnikov. It is shown that in the both transcendental psychology and quantum mechanics epistemological problems are associated with the impossibility of using the language of their classical predecessors. In both sciences, it becomes necessary to use a new language, a new way of thinking and a new logic of understanding the phenomena under study. All this allows us to conclude that both in transcendental psychology and in quantum mechanics, researchers are dealing with a new ontology of reality that differs from that studied in classical physics and in the phenomenology of classical psychology. It became necessary to divide reality into observable and unobservable. This allows us to say that we are talking about polyontic (or modal) philosophy – different modalities or modes of being, within the framework of which it is necessary to consider the relationship between the necessary, the possible and the real things. Both sciences are the sciences of becoming. If QM is the science of the formation of the observed world, then TP is the science of the generation of phenomena of psychical reality. This is one of the reasons for the unity of their methodological foundations. There is a fairly close similarity in the understanding of the concept of «coexisting opportunities» (or «potential opportunities»). In TP, it coincides with the concept of the coexistence of functionally equal opportunities for reflecting various concomitant properties of objects, and in QM – with the principle of superposition of states of elementary particles. The relative nature of the formation of the phenomenon in the reality of the real follows it. In TP, this is expressed in the realization of one of the coexisting possibilities of reflecting any of the presented properties of the object, and in QM this is expressed as a result of the reduction of the wave function to one of the possible states of a quantum object. The relativity of the formation of a specific phenomenon, determined by the existence of «coexisting possibilities», is realized according to the principle of relativity to the means of observation.