Although there are many different types of philosophy, many philosophers agree that the mainstream of Western philosophy (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Wittgenstein) developed toward the perfection of Socrates’ absolutism. But can the absolutism maintain its central position after analytic philosophy? There are pessimistic views on this problem, such as that of R. Rorty, the standard-bearer of neo-pragmatism. Recently, I proposed quantum language (which is including quantum mechanics, statistics, fuzzy sets, etc.). I think that that this theory is not only one of the most fundamental scientific theories, but also the scientific final destination of Western philosophy. If so, Socrates’ dream has come true. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the above and to inform readers that quantum language has the power to create a paradigm shift from the classical mechanical world view to the quantum mechanical worldview.
Although there are many different types of philosophy, many philosophers agree that the mainstream of Western philosophy (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Wittgenstein) developed toward the perfection of Socrates’ absolutism. But can the absolutism maintain its central position after analytic philosophy? There are pessimistic views on this problem, such as that of R. Rorty, the standard-bearer of neo-pragmatism. Recently, I proposed quantum language (which is including quantum mechanics, statistics, fuzzy sets, etc.). I think that that this theory is not only one of the most fundamental scientific theories, but also the scientific final destination of Western philosophy. If so, Socrates’ dream has come true. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the above and to inform readers that quantum language has the power to create a paradigm shift from the classical mechanical world view to the quantum mechanical worldview.
Recently we proposed “a new interpretation of quantum mechanics (called quantum and classical measurement theory)” in this journal (JQIS: Vol. 1, No. 2), which was characterized as the metaphysical and linguistic turn of quantum mechanics. This turn from physics to language does not only realize the remarkable extension of quantum mechanics but also yield the quantum mechanical world view (i.e., the philosophy of quantum mechanics). And thus, the turn urges us to dream that traditional philosophies (i.e., Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, John Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Saussure, Wittgenstein, etc.) can be understood in the quantum mechanical world view. This dream will be challenged in this paper. We, of course, know that most scientists are skeptical to philosophy. Still, we can expect that readers find a good linguistic philosophy (i.e. philosophy of language) in quantum mechanics.
Recently we proposed the linguistic Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is called quantum language or measurement theory. This theory is valid for both quantum and classical systems. Thus, we think that quantum language is one of the most powerful scientific theories, like statistics, and thus, it is the scientific completion (i.e., the destination) of dualistic idealism. If so, we can introduce the concept “progress” in the dualistic idealism. For example, we can assert that [Plato → Descartes → Kant → Wittgenstein → quantum language], where [“X” → “Y”] means that “Y” is more like quantum language than “X”. In this paper, we will study the problem of universals from the perspective of quantum language (i.e., from the scientific perspective of ignoring any religious perspective). And we can be confident of the progress of both of the two time series [Plato → Anselmus → Thomas Aquinas → quantum language] and [Descartes → Thomas Aquinas → quantum language] in dualistic idealism. The reader may find it surprising that Scholastic philosophy is more scientific than Cartesian-Kantian philosophy. However, this is because Descartes gave up the pursuit of “universals” and presented dualism as a visible “mind-matter dualism” so that it could be familiar to the general public. This made the Cartesian-Kantian philosophy socially successful, but unscientific. The problem of universals has not always been clear in the long history of philosophy. The reader should be convinced that the reason is that the problem of universals has been discussed in an incomplete non-scientific dualism to this day.
Recently, we proposed quantum language (in short, QL) as a mathematical realization of the quantum mechanical worldview. QL has the form of “axioms (measurement and causality)” + “linguistic Copenhagen interpretation”. And the quantum language can cover both quantum and classical systems. In this way, QL is one of the most powerful scientific theories beyond statistics, and I believe QL is the only dualism that has been scientifically successful. If so, the history of Western philosophy (mostly dualistic idealism) can be discussed from the quantum linguistic point of view. In this paper, we discuss the similarities between quantum language and Cartesian and Kantian epistemology. We conclude that “Axioms (measurement and causality)” can be characterized as a study belonging to Continental rationalism that sought to advance Descartes’s mind-body dualism. On the other hand, “linguistic Copenhagen interpretation” belongs to British empiricism (Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant), which can be characterized as the epistemological application of Descartes’s mind-body dualism. The conventional theory is that continental rationalism and British empiricism were synthesized by Kant. Therefore, I think it is necessary to weigh the usual conventional theory with our claims.
Recently we proposed the linguistic Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is called quantum language or measurement theory. This theory is valid for both quantum and classical systems. Thus we think that quantum language is one of the most powerful scientific theories, like statistics. In this paper we justify Zadeh’s fuzzy sets theory in quantum language, that is, fuzzy propositions are identified with binary measurements. This implies that the definition of “proposition” is, for the first time, acquired in the field of non-mathematics. Further, we assert that fuzzy logic is more natural than crisp logic in science. And furthermore, we discuss and solve Saussure’s linguistics, Moore’s paradox, Quine’s analytic-synthetic distinction and Lewis Carroll’s logical paradox. Therefore, from the philosophical point of view, our result gives a complete answer to Wittgenstein’s problem: “Why does logic work in our world?” and “What is a scientific proposition?” in his picture theory. That is, we simultaneously justify both Zadeh’s fuzzy sets and Wittgenstein’s picture theory in the quantum mechanical worldview.
Recently we proposed “quantum language”, which was not only characterized as the metaphysical and linguistic turn of quantum mechanics but also the linguistic turn of Descartes = Kant epistemology. And further we believe that quantum language is the only scientifically successful theory in dualistic idealism. If this turn is regarded as progress in the history of western philosophy (i.e., if “philosophical progress” is defined by “approaching to quantum language”), we should study the linguistic mind-body problem more than the epistemological mind-body problem. In this paper, we show that to solve the mind-body problem and to propose “measurement axiom” in quantum language are equivalent. Since our approach is always within dualistic idealism, we believe that our linguistic answer is the only true solution to the mind-body problem.
Why should anyone think that what is so deeply puzzling about the quantum world is really a matter of logic? Why should anyone think that studying the logic of quantum mechanics should be a route to a proper understanding of quantum mechanics? There is a tradition in the philosophy of quantum mechanics, a tradition stronger among philosophical commentators than among physicists, which sees the subject as the business of understanding quantum mechanical language and the way that language relates to the world. It is an idea more strongly held by philosophers – it comes much more naturally to them – because the analytic tradition, in which most Anglo-American philosophers of science are raised, is generally much exercised about words and how they hook on to things. The analytic tradition in the philosophy of quantum mechanics is not unreasonable. Everyone admits that we cannot picture the microphysical world, that a graphic or iconic representation of quantum systems is impossible. Therefore understanding quantum mechanics must be a matter of understanding the logic of the words and the mathematics of quantum mechanics. If this seems implausible, it is because of an ambiguity in our use of the verb ‘to understand’. We understand the physical world, and we understand physics. But physics is not the physical world. It is something of an entirely different sort, a human product, a way of representing the world.