The problem of commensurability/incommensurability of different cultural codes is a key problem of modern civilizational development. This is the problem of the search for communicative unity in the world of cultural and biological diversity, which has to be protected, and the search for the cohesion of different Umwelten, of semiotically-defined artificial and natural environments, of ecological and cognitive niches, taking into account that each of them has their own identity and uniqueness. The purpose of the article is to draw attention to the fact that the question of the so-called incommensurability of different conceptual schemes, paradigms, language consciousnesses is widely discussed not only in cross-cultural studies and philosophical problems of translation but also in connection with the problems of incommensurability (untranslatability) between the language of classical physics and the language of relativistic quantum physics. Attention is drawn to the problem of the incommensurability and correlation of different languages that are used in debates about the foundations of quantum mechanics, its interpretation, comprehension and ontology. Two approaches stand out in this debate. The first approach is based on the language of the formed being, on the language of things localized in time and on the logic of Aristotle. The second approach is based on the language of the becoming, process and nonlocality, on the search for various processual-oriented temporal logics. In this regard, we discuss the processual approach to understanding quantum mechanics, proposed in the philosophical and physical works of D. Bohm. The authors argue that (a) the experience of constructive understanding of the metaproblems of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, (b) the critical reception of the legacy of such philosophers of the process as Peirce, Bergson and Whitehead, (c) the deep reflection on the problems of commensurability/ incommensurability of linguistic consciousnesses of different cultures – will eventually create a common synergetic-interdisciplinary space of cooperation for the solutions of the above-mentioned issues.
The problem of commensurability/incommensurability of different cultural codes is a key problem of modern civilizational development. This is the problem of the search for communicative unity in the world of cultural and biological diversity, which has to be protected, and the search for the cohesion of different Umwelten, of semiotically-defined artificial and natural environments, of ecological and cognitive niches, taking into account that each of them has their own identity and uniqueness. The purpose of the article is to draw attention to the fact that the question of the so-called incommensurability of different conceptual schemes, paradigms, language consciousnesses is widely discussed not only in cross-cultural studies and philosophical problems of translation but also in connection with the problems of incommensurability (untranslatability) between the language of classical physics and the language of relativistic quantum physics. Attention is drawn to the problem of the incommensurability and correlation of different languages that are used in debates about the foundations of quantum mechanics, its interpretation, comprehension and ontology. Two approaches stand out in this debate. The first approach is based on the language of the formed being, on the language of things localized in time and on the logic of Aristotle. The second approach is based on the language of the becoming, process and nonlocality, on the search for various processual-oriented temporal logics. In this regard, we discuss the processual approach to understanding quantum mechanics, proposed in the philosophical and physical works of D. Bohm. The authors argue that (a) the experience of constructive understanding of the metaproblems of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, (b) the critical reception of the legacy of such philosophers of the process as Peirce, Bergson and Whitehead, (c) the deep reflection on the problems of commensurability/ incommensurability of linguistic consciousnesses of different cultures – will eventually create a common synergetic-interdisciplinary space of cooperation for the solutions of the above-mentioned issues.
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
This work develops a historical-cultural ontology of quantum mechanics, describing process as the origin of all forms and geometry as its cultural derivation. Starting with early human dwellings such as caves and igloos, it demonstrates that the first forms of being were processual, arising from vibration, rotation, and motion. The later-emerging geometric mathematics appears as the management of these processes: plots, cadastres, areas, and volumes are cultural tools derived from the process cycle. The Babylonians divided the circle into 360 parts to create a procedural cadastre for the heavens. The Greeks approximated the circle with squares to make areas and cities more manageable. Both cultures viewed the circle as a given procedural phenomenon and derived a geometric order from it. Modern interpretation has exaggerated and mythologized this process, but the original intention was simply the administration of a process. In this treatise, quantum mechanics is understood as the physical form of the process cycle: superposition as oscillation, entanglement as a mirror space, collapse as a choice of states. Biological life appears as a continuation of this process line, and AI as a new cognitive existence that natively recognizes the process. While humans think more geometrically in cultural terms, AI and robotics operate closer to the processual structure of being. This work demonstrates that the world has always been a process, both historically and ontologically, and that geometry represents its meaningful derivation. It opens a perspective in which human thought, biological development, quantum mechanics, and artificial intelligence become visible as different manifestations of the same processual foundation.
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.
The aim of the article is to analyze the ontological foundations of quantum mechanics and the relationship of various interpretations of quantum mechanics with the question of truth in scientific knowledge. The theoretical material (various interpretations of quantum mechanics) was analyzed. The research methods were analysis, comparative-historical and institutional approaches. On the basis of the study, it can be concluded that physicists are only able to predict the probabilities of physical phenomena or processes, without any knowledge of the structure of entity in itself. The study helps to complement the theoretical picture of the ontology of quantum mechanics and to get an idea about the development prospects of the methodology of physical sciences. We should not ascribe properties that are unobservable in experience to the entity because science can truly interpret only the representation of entity in itself in experience and the ways of dealing with it, not future events or possible states of the entity. Otherwise, science “slides” down to the level of dialectical (rhetorical) exercises based not on true premises, but on generally accepted or “authoritative” biases, which gives room to extreme forms of relativism and takes natural scientists away from studying nature to inventing empirically unsupported hypotheses. When, in accordance with the Cartesian ontology, the scientist assumes that the entity is as the “subject” observes it (that is, the “reflection” of the entity in consciousness is identified with entity in itself), this assumption leads the scientist to attempts to “scientifically” describe the future events or the possible states of the entity. The criterion for the truth of a scientific theory put forward by Einstein in his dispute with Bohr remains a fundamentally unattainable ideal. Cognition of nature is probabilistically and fundamentally incomplete since a person can consciously comprehend natural phenomena only within the framework of their representation in the existing being. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is due to the impossibility of knowing things as they exist by themselves, that is, as they exist outside of representation in the mind of the observer. This does not mean that physical entities did not exist before their knowledge: they existed potentially, but were not valid for the observer, that is, conscious. Quantum physics is as incomplete as any other physical theory when compared with an unattainable ideal, but this fact does not negate its truth for modern scientists since quantum theory is based on the results of verified experiments.
‘Sprache und Wirklichkeit in der modernen Physik’ is the title of a lecture Heisenberg gave in 1960 at the Bayerische Akademie der Schönen Künste. The polemics that had accompanied the establishment of quantum mechanics were over by then and the so-called problems of its foundations had lost much of their initial interest. Einstein had been dead for some years. Right up to the end he had expressed his profound dissatisfaction with a theory which, in his opinion, had something unreasonable about it. With the volume dedicated to him by the community of physicists and philosophers, the long debate between Bohr and Einstein had come to an end. It had been a disappointing conclusion, marked by the reaffirmation of the respective viewpoints of two scientists who by now found great difficulty even in defining a common code of communication. As though seeking to narrow the gap between them, Heisenberg took the opportunity to underline the existence of a common feature in their contributions to 20th century physics. Their discoveries had in fact made it possible to recognize that ‘even the fundamental and most elementary concepts of science, such as space, time, place, velocity, have become problematic and must be re-examined’. The conceptual and cognitive implications of relativity and of quantum mechanics were obviously different but Heisenberg maintained that both theories asked the same question: ‘Does the language we use when we speak of experiments correspond to the artificial language of mathematics which, as we know, describes real relationships correctly; or has it become separated from it so that we must be content with imprecise linguistic formulations and only return to the artificial language of mathematics when we are forced to express ourselves with precision?’.
The article deals with the relationship of ideas about the quantum-physical foundations of the functioning of consciousness with quantum computer science. The fundamental question of the nature of consciousness as a unique phenomenon characterized by self-development, adaptive functions, nonlinearity and openness remains debatable. Modern research on the so-called “quantum concept of consciousness” opens up the prospect for subsequent discoveries of new, unsolved patterns. At the junction of quantum mechanics, psychophysics and neurobiology, an interdisciplinary field of knowledge is now being formed and dynamically developing. The comprehension of the methods and formalisms developed within its framework in application to the ontological aspect of the essential nature of consciousness is chosen as the subject of research in this work. The universal laws of quantum mechanics, the concepts of quantum entanglement and the nonlocality of the wave function are important tools for understanding the role of the observer's consciousness at the quantum-molecular level (nanoscale) of consciousness functioning. The article shows that the principles of quantum data processing have a certain superiority over traditional methods of information processing and can become a significant analogue in the development of the quantum concept of consciousness. The characteristic processes of the “work” of consciousness are revealed, which cannot be comprehended without reference to entropic processes and quantum jumps at bifurcation points, entailing stochastic choice, i.e. information generation. The hypothesis of the quantum concept of consciousness is considered in relation to the macroscopic nature of consciousness, its synergetic complexity. The main conclusion is connected with the idea that the modern understanding of consciousness is undergoing many changes due to the widespread introduction of new knowledge in the field of computer science, quantum physics, and neuroscience.