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.
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.
According to scientific realism, science gives us an approximately true description of what the world is like. But what does it mean? In this chapter, we focus on the ontological and metaphysical aspects of this discussion. That is, we are concerned with the following questions: what there is, according to our best scientific theories? And how are these things that theories say exist? We start from the assumption that a genuine scientific realism must deal with these issues. Taking non-relativistic quantum mechanics as a case study, we discuss some of the challenges currently faced by a genuinely realistic stance. We argue, first, that in the ontological aspect, realists are in the same boat as science, that is, without sufficient epistemic justification to adopt the belief in the entities postulated by a single quantum theory, given that experience (currently) is not able to decide between rival theories; in the metaphysical aspect, realists also encounter problems with theory choice, given the possibility of associating more than one metaphysical theory with the description of the entities postulated by each quantum theory. The same goes for structuralist alternatives, since, even if we accept that scientific theories are committed to the existence of structures, but not objects, we still do not know what structures are, metaphysically. Finally, we move forward in the discussion with the meta-Popperian method, which serves to reduce the metaphysical alternatives associated with the ontological postulates of scientific theories. We may not know what the correct alternative is, but we have been able to progressively check which metaphysical alternatives are incompatible with each scientific theory.
The present paper interprets quantum mechanics within the ontological framework of the Theory of Consciousness. The Theory posits consciousness as the sole ontological reality, formally described as a topological space, and derives all physical phenomena as manifestations of the local knowledge of the observer. Within this framework the five principal phenomena of quantum mechanics —superposition, wave-function collapse, the uncertainty principle, quantization, and entanglement — are shown to arise necessarily from the axiomatic ontological chain of consciousness without introducing new postulates. Quantum indeterminacy is reinterpreted not as a fundamental property of matter but as a structural limitation of the observer’s local knowledge. The Planck constant is identified with the minimum resolvable change of the knowledge structure of the quantum observer. The conceptual paradoxes of quantum mechanics—the measurement problem, non-locality, and the probabilistic nature of results — dissolve once consciousness is restored as the ontological foundation.
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
Since its inception, the intricate mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics has empowered physicists to describe and predict specific physical events known as quantum processes. However, this success in probabilistic predictions has been accompanied by a profound challenge in the ontological interpretation of the theory. This interpretative complexity stems from two key aspects. Firstly, quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory that, so far, is not derivable from any more basic scientific theory. Secondly, it delves into a realm of invisible phenomena that often contradicts our intuitive and commonsensical notions of matter and causality. Despite its notorious difficulties of interpretation, the most widely accepted set of views of quantum phenomena has been known as the Copenhagen interpretation since the beginning of quantum mechanics. According to these views, the correct ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics is incompatible with ontological realism in general and with philosophical materialism in particular. Anti-realist and anti-materialist interpretations of quantum matter have survived until today. This paper discusses these perspectives, arguing that materialistic interpretations of quantum mechanics are compatible with its mathematical formalism, while anti-realist and anti-materialist views are based on wrong philosophical assumptions. However, although physicalism provides a better explanation for quantum phenomena than idealism, its downward reductionism prevents it from accounting for more complex forms of matter, such as biological or sociocultural systems. Thus, the paper argues that neither physicalism nor idealism can explain the universe. I propose then a non-reductionistic form of materialism called inclusive materialism. The conclusion is that the acknowledgment of the qualitative irreducibility of ontological emergent levels above the purely physical one does not deny philosophical materialism but enriches it.
Introduction: the study considers the problem of observer’s status during specific quantum-mechanical experiments, in which the empirical result directly depends on the participation of the experimenter's mind. Here the problem arises of the connection between the mind of the observer and the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality. The paper pays attention to modern trends in physics and philosophy devoted to the study of this phenomenon. Some aspects of the philosophical interpretation of the mind as a quantum mechanism are presented. Materials and Methods: the research materials demonstrate an overview of several common quantum-philosophical theories. Attempts have been made to search for the connection of quantum phenomena with the mechanisms of the functioning of human mind. The experimental background of quantum physics is demonstrated, providing material for analyzing the possibility of applying modern quantum theory to the question of identifying the relationship of the quantum approach and describing the problem of the influence of the observer’s mind on the result of a physical experiment. Results: the concept of quantum mechanics, taking into account the latest achievements and results of physics, philosophy and psychology, allows us to consider the mind of the observer as an integral part of the mechanism responsible for the formation of the surrounding physical reality. The anthropic principle of participation considered in the work gives the observer's mind a special role allowing to form a quantum-mechanical description of physical reality. Discussion and conclusions: it is shown that the mind of the observer plays an important role in quantum theory. Moreover, mind as a psychic phenomenon may be in fact identical with the quantum-mechanical concept of choosing an alternative. Given the fact that the brain's thought processes influence the measurement results, it can be assumed that mind changes quantum probabilities. This assumption allows us to take a different look at the concept of reality itself.
Quantum mechanics is among the most successful mathematical frameworks in modern science, providing precise predictions, experimental validation, and wide-ranging technological applications. This success, however, has been accompanied by a long-standing suspension of a fundamental question: the ontological status of quantum itself. While dominant approaches emphasize how quantum phenomena behave, the question of what these behaviors are the behavior of has largely been deferred. This work does not propose a new physical theory, nor does it challenge the empirical or mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. Instead, it offers an ontological positioning that reintroduces the question of ground. Quantum is approached neither as a discrete object nor as a purely mathematical formalism, but as the joint mode of operation of energy, nature, and consciousness. Within this framework, consciousness is not treated as an external causal agent acting upon physical systems, but as an immanent, organizing, and meaning-generating aspect of energetic continuity. Differentiation is thus located not in nature itself, but at the level of meaning. Observation and measurement are reinterpreted accordingly, not as mechanisms of physical collapse, but as processes through which ontological distinctions become articulated. By reframing quantum as a ground rather than a thing, this study aims to clarify persistent conceptual tensions—such as the observer problem and the status of measurement—without invoking speculative physics or metaphysical dualism. The paper presents not a solution, but a repositioning: an invitation to reconsider the ontological assumptions that guide contemporary readings of quantum mechanics.