This article is devoted to a brief analysis of the views of the German physicist in their comparison with the concept of the metaphysical foundations of the universe of modern physicists Alexei Vladimirovich and Lev Alekseevich Burov. The object of the study is the main philosophical work of Heisenberg - the treatise “The Order of Reality” - and the work of the Drillers called “Metaphysical Status of physical Laws”. The metaphysical concepts of the multimodular reality of the mentioned authors are compared, and a brief historical basis for the emergence of these concepts is given. The substantiation of the importance of philosophical research in the field of physics and mathematics, and quantum physics is given - in particular. The necessity of further research of the issue is postulated considering the latest concepts in natural science within the framework of binary geometrophysics of Yu.S. Vladimirov. In conclusion, the importance of the modal (or multimodular) nature of reality is argued for the construction of a new, comprehensive picture of the world, within which it would be possible, finally, to understand the essence of quantum processes that determine reality, and to reach a fundamentally new level of philosophy of natural science.
This article is devoted to a brief analysis of the views of the German physicist in their comparison with the concept of the metaphysical foundations of the universe of modern physicists Alexei Vladimirovich and Lev Alekseevich Burov. The object of the study is the main philosophical work of Heisenberg - the treatise “The Order of Reality” - and the work of the Drillers called “Metaphysical Status of physical Laws”. The metaphysical concepts of the multimodular reality of the mentioned authors are compared, and a brief historical basis for the emergence of these concepts is given. The substantiation of the importance of philosophical research in the field of physics and mathematics, and quantum physics is given - in particular. The necessity of further research of the issue is postulated considering the latest concepts in natural science within the framework of binary geometrophysics of Yu.S. Vladimirov. In conclusion, the importance of the modal (or multimodular) nature of reality is argued for the construction of a new, comprehensive picture of the world, within which it would be possible, finally, to understand the essence of quantum processes that determine reality, and to reach a fundamentally new level of philosophy of natural science.
W. Heisenberg's treatise “Reality and its order” is a philosophical work of a scientist and philosopher and reflects the totality of his views on various aspects of reality. In this article, the author attempts to analyze the central concepts of quantum mechanics, “state” and “time”, as well as to determine how relevant the ideas of the treatise may be in the world of modern natural science. This point seems especially important, given the time of writing the treatise (no later than 1942), which gives reason to recall the philosophical foundations on which physics rests, and give them a new interpretation that meets modern challenges. The article shows the need to build modern physics on the principles of metaphysics, that is, to study the subject of physics from the position that the world has a metaphysical basis. Statements about the nature of time by various authors are given: from ancient natural philosophers (Aristotle) to medieval thinkers (Augustine, Grossetest), as well as modern researchers (A.Yu. Sevalnikov, Yu.S. Vladimirov, V.D. Zakharov), etc.
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 article is devoted to the analysis of the concept of “reality” in the philosophical and scientific works of the theoretical physicist Werner Heisenberg. It analyzes the Heisenberg’s works on the philosophy of natural science, a significant part of which is devoted to quantum theory and its basic concepts. The author shows that Heisenberg’s thought was formed in parallel with the development of relevant problems among neo-Kantian philosophers (N. Hartmann, B. Nicolescu, etc.) throughout the 20th century. According to the author, many European researchers focus their attention on the scientific side of Heisenberg’s work, that is, on the analysis of his physical argumentation. The philosophical aspects of Heisenberg’s works are mostly studied by Russian philosophers of science. The intellectual vector of Heisenberg’s work was the idea of the need for a new philosophical thinking that goes beyond the scope of rational activity and requires a reconception of the gnoseological categories used as an instrument for the cognition of the reality. It relies on the phenomenological tradition, as well as on the arguments of J.W. von Goethe that theory cannot “capture” reality; it requires a synthesis of “trust in experience” and “intelligent observation” (discretion) to understand it. It is also demonstrated in the article the Heisenberg's attitude to the formation of the language of science and to the comparative studies of the philosophical systems of such thinkers as Plato, Democritus, Aristotle.
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 quantum mechanics instituted a completely new mathematical language. This change in physics required physicists and philosophers to rethink the concepts by which reality could be represented, since classical notions were limited in the understanding of atomic phenomena. The French philosopher G. Bachelard and the German physicist W. Heisenberg are authors who have discussed the major changes that have occurred in physics and have dealt with the problem of language in quantum mechanics. In this article, the objective is to resort to the arguments of both authors to evidence relations between their ideas about the referred subject. It is noteworthy that Bachelard and Heisenberg criticize the application of the usual language and philosophical concepts of modernity in the new physics, but, through his notion of rupture, the French philosopher proposes that quantum mechanics be restricted to mathematical language. This idea runs counter to Bohr's principle of complementarity, which Heisenberg acknowledges in the understanding of quantum phenomena and an interpretation of quantum physics.
In PHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY: The Revolution Modern Science, (1) Werner Heisenberg aims, in not too technical language, to clarify change concept of reality manifesting itself quantum theory. He means to contribute to an articulation of the (not only epistemology) that underlies quantum theory's modified logical patterns. (2) To highly unusual degree, Heisenberg is gripped by sense of responsibility of modern quantum physicist to convey, language immediately intelligible to thinking public, his most serious and far-reaching reflections on metaphysical implications of his scientific work. One may go so far as to say that there is substantial evidence, partly within Physics and Philosophy, that Heisenberg regards such reflections and their public communication as his most important task. Heisenberg is especially apt for this intensely self-conscious contribution to humanity's historical-cultural development because his stature as principal originating architect of quantum at its most fundamental level is complemented by his deployment of an unusually broad and deep erudition and lifelong preoccupation with philosophic and artistic ontology from Anaximander through Kant and Goethe to Heidegger. No thinker has yet appeared who possesses such an authoritative combination of decisively necessary learning quantum physics and historical development of philosophic ontology. Despite flurry of renewed scholarly interest development of Heisenberg's scientific work, (3) and his complex relation to dramatic unfolding of German cultural his time, (4) there has yet to be executed sustained and philosophically critical interpretative commentary on this book that is his crucial philosophical-ontological legacy. Given profound ontological puzzles that continue to attend quantum physics and its implications for humanity's past as well as present and future conception of reality, such critical exegesis of this text is overdue. In what follows I try to extricate central nerve of Heisenberg's sinuously unfolding, dialectical exposition, and process to elucidate its strengths but also its deep ambiguities and perplexities--which express, I believe, fundamental dilemmas that pervade contemporary ontology. I Heisenberg makes inviolability of principle of noncontradiction cornerstone of his discussion. Unlike Aristotle (5) Heisenberg does not wrestle with challenge posed by possible denial of principle. He understands nonmathematical articulation of quantum to escape what would otherwise be devastating contradictions--most obviously contradiction wave/particle character of basic entities described by theory--through Bohr's famous principle of complementarity (which Heisenberg closely associates with von Weizsacker's notion of coexistent states), combined with Heisenberg's own principle of potentia, potentiality, potentialities. (6) II After brief introduction, Heisenberg his second chapter sketches history of quantum theory and process begins to explain what he means by potentia. In 1924 Bohr and his colleagues tried to solve apparent contradiction between picture and particle picture by concept of wave. The electromagnetic were treated not as 'real' waves but as mathematical descriptions of probabilities, every point relevant space, for the absorption (or induced emission) of light quantum by an atom at this point. Later this idea of was applied more effectively to much more abstract mathematical in many-dimensional configuration space that was discovered through researches of Schrodinger. Heisenberg reinterprets this mathematical probability wave ontological tenus, as signaling tendency [Tendenz] for a definite happening [einem bestimmten Geschehen], thus introducing remarkable kind of physical reality, standing middle between possibility and actuality: a quantitative version of old concept of 'dunamis' or 'potentia' philosophy of Aristotle. …