The four antinomies of Zeno of Elea continue to be provoking issues that remain relevant for the foundation of science. Aristotle used this antinomy to arrive at a deeper understanding of movement: it is a fluent continuum that he considers to be a whole. The parts, if any, are only potentially present. Similarly, quantum mechanics states that movement is quantized; things move or change in nonreducible steps, the so-called quanta. This view is in contrast to classical mechanics, where infinitesimally small steps are permitted. The objective of the present study is to show the merits of the Aristotelian approach. Examples from modern science serve to illustrate the philosophical statements.
The four antinomies of Zeno of Elea continue to be provoking issues that remain relevant for the foundation of science. Aristotle used this antinomy to arrive at a deeper understanding of movement: it is a fluent continuum that he considers to be a whole. The parts, if any, are only potentially present. Similarly, quantum mechanics states that movement is quantized; things move or change in nonreducible steps, the so-called quanta. This view is in contrast to classical mechanics, where infinitesimally small steps are permitted. The objective of the present study is to show the merits of the Aristotelian approach. Examples from modern science serve to illustrate the philosophical statements.
The four antinomies of Zeno of Elea, especially Achilles and the tortoise continue to be provoking issues which are even now not always satisfactory solved. Aristotle himself used this antinomy to develop his understanding of movement: it is a fluent continuum that has to be treated as a whole. The parts, if any, are only potentially present in the whole. And that is exactly what quantum mechanics is claiming: movement is quantized in contrast to classical mechanics. The objective of this study is to show the merits of the Aristotelian approach. It is a good candidate for serving as the philosophical background for understanding fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics. Especially mentioned are the influence of the final state in quantum mechanics that in philosophy could be correlated with the final cause. Like in the work of Aristotle also in this study examples from science are presented to illustrate the philosophical approach. But, in contrast to ancient Greek, the examples now relate to issues which are only fully accessible to the scientifically trained reader. As the main conclusion the dialogue between scientists and philosophers is strongly recommended which will result in progress in both disciplines.
The genesis of classical science was accompanied by a transition from logical to mathematical analysis. This change did not mean a rejection of Aristotle's canons of logic; it was simply that these canons became inadequate. They underwent a certain generalization and, in the course of this, came closely to approximate mathematical analysis, the foundations of the calculus of the infinitesimal. Classical science no longer took as its point of departure the notion of motion from "something" into "something," as did Peripatetic physics and cosmology (for example, motion to "the natural place"). The initial concept is motion, considered from point to point and instant to instant. This kind of differential notion of motion was clearly expressed by Kepler when he wrote: "Where Aristotle sees direct oppositeness between two things, with no mediating links, there I, looking at geometry philosophically, find a mediated opposition; so that where Aristotle employs a single term, ‘other,’ I use two: ‘larger’ and ‘smaller.’" (1)
The study of the motion of bodies is referred to as mechanics. The study of the motion of subatomic particles is involved in the field of quantum mechanics. The argument that quantum mechanics is the offspring of earlier mechanics continues to be supported by this body of study. To maintain this perspective, the work traces the origins of the study of mechanics back to Aristotle. This research was subsequently rethought and given a new orientation in modern Newtonian mechanics. It is demonstrated in this work, via the use of the philosophical mechanism of analysis, that the disintegration of these two mechanics resulted in the development of quantum mechanics. The study makes the key observation that, when Quantum mechanics is compared with the two earlier types of mechanics, the concepts of objectivity, causality, determinism, and certainty characteristic of the earlier types are rendered obsolete within the framework of Quantum physics. The discussion concludes with the thesis that, given the current state of scientific research, which enables the unification of all domains of knowledge, the combination of metaphysics and science in the pursuit of greater human understanding ought to create a new dimension of knowledge acquisition.
Aristotle was the first to notice that entity exists not only as real, but also as possible. The Aristotelian concept of possibility has an insufficiently clear ontological sense. Aristotle does not ask about own Being of possibilities. For a classical thought it had no essential importance. In quantum physics the situation is different. Quantum possibilities have own action, so, it is necessary to recognize their own Being. However, it cannot be made within usual thinking, since quantum possibilities do not allow representation in terms of an entity present-at-hand. It sends us to Heidegger’s ideas. Classical philosophical thought does not notice an ontological difference between the “Being” and “Entity”; as a result “Being” is presented as “something”. Heidegger showed simplified nature of such approach, however the natural sciences usually accept the specified identification. A surprising exception is the quantum mechanics. Having recognized own Being of quantum possibilities, we will see the attribute of Heidegger’s ontology. This “Being” is not “Something” and is designated by me as “Ψ-Being”. It possesses the internal temporality similar to existential time of Dasein. Also the difference between “Ψ-Being” and “Being” of Heidegger’s ontology is detected. The fact is that “Ψ-Being possesses action which is capable to change definiteness of quantum entity. It offers a heuristic prospect for philosophical ontology. According to Heidegger, Dasein is the existential Being of possibilities. However, these possibilities are not connected with personal definiteness. But the quantum mechanics shows us that definiteness of “entity” (“something” or “who”) can change under the influence of “Being” that cannot be imagined in terms of “something”.
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.
ABSTRACT The paper aims to bridge the history of quantum theory with its philosophical implications. The focus is not only on the scientific underpinnings of quantum mechanics (these theories emerged as ‘ad hoc’ responses to experimental anomalies) but also on the philosophical ramifications of its probabilistic nature and indeterminacy, which differ from classical realism. The paper examines Dirac's, Bell's, and modern views, focusing on how quantum mechanics (QM) challenges traditional notions of causality, objectivity, and truth while embracing epistemological and metaphysical perspectives. Debates over collapse theories and hidden variables are discussed, as well as Putnam's philosophical outlook, which includes his trenchant involvement with realism, logic, and the measurement problem. Finally, the paper proposes that QM represents a philosophical revolution that renews our understanding of reality, knowledge, and scientific explanation, rather than simply serving as a physical theory for assessing the prospects of quantum philosophy by connecting it to broader aspects such as relativity, causality, and scientific realism.