The article is devoted to the interpretation of physical knowledge in the works "Structure of Physics" by K. F. von Weizsäcker and “Matter does not exist” by H.-P. Dürr. These works reveal a special understanding of matter in quantum mechanics. In the interpretation of physical knowledge H.-P. Dürr and K. F. von Weizsäcker postulate a special interpretation of matter within the framework of quantum theory, namely the inseparability of consciousness from matter. At the same time, we emphasize the fundamental difference between these approaches. H.-P. Dürr remains in the position of Advaita-Vedanta, his approach is closer to Eastern metaphysics, Weizsäcker adheres to the Western epistemological tradition, presenting physics as what we can know about matter. Heidegger also touches this issue, he criticizes the concept of "object" and "subject" in modern science, but does not say that both concepts must somehow be combined.
The article is devoted to the interpretation of physical knowledge in the works "Structure of Physics" by K. F. von Weizsäcker and “Matter does not exist” by H.-P. Dürr. These works reveal a special understanding of matter in quantum mechanics. In the interpretation of physical knowledge H.-P. Dürr and K. F. von Weizsäcker postulate a special interpretation of matter within the framework of quantum theory, namely the inseparability of consciousness from matter. At the same time, we emphasize the fundamental difference between these approaches. H.-P. Dürr remains in the position of Advaita-Vedanta, his approach is closer to Eastern metaphysics, Weizsäcker adheres to the Western epistemological tradition, presenting physics as what we can know about matter. Heidegger also touches this issue, he criticizes the concept of "object" and "subject" in modern science, but does not say that both concepts must somehow be combined.
This translation contains the preface and the first two chapters from the last book of W. Heisenberg’s disciple Hans-Peter Duerr “Matter does not exist!” The book is devoted to the problem of interpretation of quantum mechanics. The author, G.-P. Duerr, raises the question of the need for a new view of the fundamental issues of physics and philosophy in general, while he turns to the experience of the Indian philosophical tradition, primarily relies on the Advaita Vedanta school. The author focuses on the concepts of “transcendence”, “immanence”, “cognition”, etc. The problematic of this work lies in the field of not only physics, metaphysics and religion, but also psychology, intercultural interaction.
The article is devoted to the problem of time in modern science, where in recent years there have been major changes related to the latest discoveries in the field of the foundations of quantum theory. The author refers to works of K.-F. von Weizsacker (which works are not well-known in Russian-speaking field). Weizsacker deploys a large-scale program of building modern physics, while starting (not only as a physicist, but also a professional philosopher) with questions of philosophical interpretation of postulates of modern physics, especially quantum mechanics. His key thesis is that time in physics is fundamentally distinct, which represents the whole physics as an integral scientific discipline. Weizsacker comes from physical and philosophical reflections, that give a special value to his work. Analyzing the conclusions of theoretical physics, namely the issues of substantiation of statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, and, above all, quantum mechanics, Weizsacker comes to the key idea of the structure of time in the substantiation of physical theory. The author in this conclusion disagrees with the opinion of most modern physicists that time has a subjective character, and the modus of the past, present and future reflects its essential character. The allocation of the time structure requires special logic. Such a logic is temporal and quantum. Starting from temporal logic, introducing the concept of possibility and probability, he comes to the substantiation of quantum mechanics. Being modal logic, it is based on the concept of possibility and probability. Key concept for Weizsacker is a binary alternative (Uralternative), closely related to the principle of superposition in quantum mechanics. By introducing the concept of certain alternatives, essentially actualized alternatives, Weizsacker shows how one can get the theory of relativity with its space-time structure. Further, he shows that based on its structure, you can get the theory of relativity. The space-time structure in this case is secondary, relational, as understood by Leibniz, Mach, and Einstein.
We are interested here in the program of reconstruction of quantum mechanics of the German physicist and philosopher Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, which still has some supporters today. In the major part of this article, we limit ourselves to examining purely epistemological and philosophical questions. The theory of the German physicist is often interpreted with reference to Kant, but the most of the time in a rather vague way (categories of understanding, theory of experience). We can afford to be more precise. First we situate the theory of fundamental alternatives (or Ur-alternatives) of von Weizsäcker in the lineage of the Kantian theory of the transcendental Ideal. We then show that the physicist only substitutes for the classical logic, on which Kant relied, a quantum logic allowing to generate, from the alternatives, via the local isomorphism between certain spinor groups and groups linked to space-time, the whole of physical reality to which we have access. After examining some problems, we finally show how this perspective leads to a quantum theory of information.
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.
This article deals with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and its epistemological discussion by Ernst Cassirer and Richard Hönigswald. The starting point is Cassirer's treatise Determinism and Indeterminism in Modern Physics, published in Stockholm. Both philosophers and several physicists were involved in the subsequent exchange of letters. From a physical point of view, the Copenhagen interpretation was particularly criticised by v. Laue and Einstein. Both demanded a revision of the foundations of quantum mechanics or a critical examination of essential physical concepts. The epistemological implications of the Copenhagen interpretation were rejected, in particular that the interactions between observation, the observed and the observer in quantum physics experiments should lead to a renunciation of the concept of causality or an objectively unambiguous description of natural processes. Cassirer argues here that quantum mechanics fulfils the epistemological requirement of transforming ontological “concepts of things” into epistemological concepts of relations and is therefore compatible with the neo-critical approach he advocates. At the same time, Hönigswald was working on two major treatises on the structure of physics and the concept of causality. Here he undertakes an epistemological foundation of physics as a whole. A transcendental foundation of the concept of experience and its specifications in principles such as contemplation, observation or experiment appears to be called for. Hönigswald therefore essentially rejects the Copenhagen interpretation, as it draws epistemological consequences by physical means and thus inadmissibly reverses the transcendentally necessary relations of justification. These arguments are examined and could be used for a current discussion on the epistemological foundations of quantum mechanics and physics as a whole. A post-Neo-Kantian, transcendental philosophical foundation of scientific knowledge, especially of modern physics, seems possible and necessary.
This paper will present questions from three perspectives about Quantum Mechanics (QM): physics, epistemological, and metaphysical.The quantum phenomena do not fit with the parameters of classical physics, so a daily intuition on macroscopic world is dispensable when it is the quantum object investigated.This physical domain induces a new thinking, which requires also new concepts to describe such object.The QM is disturbing and stimulates epistemological reflections, as the issues of access about what is known; and metaphysical theme are not to be left behind with regard to QM: What would the quantum object to?What is apprehended when this object is perceived, once considered the disturbing characteristics that constitute its physical description: interference and non-separability?What is its nature?This paper focuses briefly on the analysis of B. d'Espagnat in Veiled Reality, which would represent the physical perspective of QT; for epistemological questions, one will resort to the Kantian conception of knowledge; and with regard to the metaphysical perspective, we will rely on an article by Professor J. B. Arenhart.It is necessary to note that the question that pervades in this paper is about if the experience in QM is built.Thus, we will try to seek clarity on the philosophical issues through QT, regarding the problems about the possibility of knowledge of the quantum object and its nature, and whether experience in this case is built.But furthermore, the QM instigates us to think whether metaphysics proceeds on the investigation of nature when it comes to the QM.And such a question is more than to have as problem as the scope of the description of physical data, but rather whether it makes sense or whether metaphysical research is pertinent to the QM.