Intellectual mythology in quantum mechanics is a play of differences in interpretation which is significant both at the level of semantics and communicative pragmatics. A risky game with reality implies the identification of a particular interpretation of quantum events with reality itself. This is the basis of the mythologization of quantum physics constructs. Mythologization has several aspects. First of all, there is mythopoetics of the scientific discourse. Intellectual mythopoetics in quantum physics deals with the first naming of new entities, the invention of the fundamental names which lead something into meaningful understandable existence. This imaginary something is symbolically indicated and explains the observed. But apart from that, the symbols communicating with the previous theoretical construct reformat the whole context of knowledge, set a new horizon for the exposure of being and have prognostic predictive power and the utility.Second of all, there is the inevitable choice of any a priori principles and metaphysical premises as a framework of ontology due to which there is a gluing of the imaginary, symbolic and real as well as the ontologization of a scientific model or onto-epistemological identification. The limitations of the experience and its locality do not remove the problem of choice, the risk of going beyond. The game which is at this level is not only linguistic but ontological since we are talking about the adoption and implementation of the image of the Reality in practice, the sublime image of the Other as a purposeful guide to the scientific search. And, thirdly, there is a real personal involvement in the communication of re-actualization of the sacred history of the search for truth, the joint attention, the existential involvement into this sacred history of scientists, their immersion in the horizon of consistency, in the work that they consider sacred and which is for them not only the sphere of abstract, theoretical or constructivist interest but the passion, the sublime idea, a special value and something of the highest significance.
Intellectual mythology in quantum mechanics is a play of differences in interpretation which is significant both at the level of semantics and communicative pragmatics. A risky game with reality implies the identification of a particular interpretation of quantum events with reality itself. This is the basis of the mythologization of quantum physics constructs. Mythologization has several aspects. First of all, there is mythopoetics of the scientific discourse. Intellectual mythopoetics in quantum physics deals with the first naming of new entities, the invention of the fundamental names which lead something into meaningful understandable existence. This imaginary something is symbolically indicated and explains the observed. But apart from that, the symbols communicating with the previous theoretical construct reformat the whole context of knowledge, set a new horizon for the exposure of being and have prognostic predictive power and the utility.Second of all, there is the inevitable choice of any a priori principles and metaphysical premises as a framework of ontology due to which there is a gluing of the imaginary, symbolic and real as well as the ontologization of a scientific model or onto-epistemological identification. The limitations of the experience and its locality do not remove the problem of choice, the risk of going beyond. The game which is at this level is not only linguistic but ontological since we are talking about the adoption and implementation of the image of the Reality in practice, the sublime image of the Other as a purposeful guide to the scientific search. And, thirdly, there is a real personal involvement in the communication of re-actualization of the sacred history of the search for truth, the joint attention, the existential involvement into this sacred history of scientists, their immersion in the horizon of consistency, in the work that they consider sacred and which is for them not only the sphere of abstract, theoretical or constructivist interest but the passion, the sublime idea, a special value and something of the highest significance.
This text is a philosophical and mythopoetic essay that explores quantum physics as a limit framework of modern scientific thought and myth as a complementary symbolic mode of articulating reality. The author interprets quantum theory not as a metaphysical doctrine, but as a formal language that destabilizes classical object-based ontology and opens space for relational interpretations of existence. Within this interpretative horizon, myth is considered not as a primitive form of explanation, but as an experiential-symbolic system that organizes human participation in reality. The Moon appears as a central symbolic figure that historically integrates cosmological orientation, temporal cycles, and archetypal structures of consciousness. The work does not aim to propose a physical theory or an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics in the scientific sense. Instead, it develops a philosophical reflection on the relationship between scientific formalism, symbolic thinking, and existential orientation of the human subject. ____________________________________ Данный текст представляет собой философско-мифопоэтическое эссе, в котором квантовая физика рассматривается как предельный язык современной науки, а миф — как дополнительный символический способ организации опыта реальности. Квантовая теория интерпретируется не как метафизическая доктрина, а как формальный язык, разрушающий классическую объектную онтологию и открывающий пространство реляционных интерпретаций бытия. В этом горизонте миф понимается не как примитивная форма объяснения мира, а как целостная символически-опытная система, структурирующая участие человека в реальности. Луна выступает как центральная символическая фигура, объединяющая космологическую ориентацию, цикличность времени и архетипические структуры сознания. Работа не предлагает физическую теорию или альтернативную интерпретацию квантовой механики в научном смысле. Ее цель — философская рефлексия о соотношении научного формализма, символического мышления и экзистенциальной ориентации человека. Author portal: https://sites.google.com/view/yermakov-orcid
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.
Metaphysics, as discipline dealing with the most fundamental aspects of reality, studies the essence of entities, leaving to particular sciences the study of empirical, specific, changeable and unstable aspects. In this sense metaphysics is close to ontology, tackling problems as the existence of God, the being in himself, the immortality of consciousness, the origin and meaning of the universe. Speculative physics pushes its interest to metaphysical questions too, both at atechnical (mathematical) level, and at the level of thought (in relation to philosophy). In recentyears interesting concepts and ideas have been considered and developed, involving the latest unified quantum-relativistic theories and the consequences on reality deriving from them.The search for a meaning of life, one of Anscombe’s themes, finds ferment in the search for meaning about the existence of our universe in itself and as a possible part of a multiverse containing it.The problem of measurement in quantum mechanics appears from the application of themathematical formalism to macroscopic situations and the central position of the observer in this process has produced a deviation towards a metaphysical subjectivism. There are controversial aspects about the role of consciousness in the process of reducing the wave function of quantum mechanics. This narrows the field of validity of some fundamental principles during the interaction between microsystems and macrosystems, with consequent diversification of thedefinition of the ontological state of consciousness and reality. (Local) holism has often been linked to Wittgenstein. From Wittgenstein’s answers to the paradoxes of communication and conceptual relativism, a tension emerges in his vision of linguistic games and in his mental experiments, traditionally interpreted in contrasting ways. This tension can be better understoodthrough some reflections by Wittgenstein on Einstein and his theory of relativity.
Lack of understanding of the ideas of quantum physics leads to the fact that the very word "quantum" begins to be perceived as a synonym for something mysterious, incomprehensible, and even doubtful. The arising errors sometimes lead to inadequate media coverage of the development of quantum technologies, as the case with the ignorant reaction of the press in June 2016 to the statement of the Russian authorities about the prospects of quantum teleportation, which some media presented as teleportation from science fiction. Such misunderstandings can impede the formation of the necessary trust in quantum technologies on the part of the business community, politicians and the public. In part, the reason for this state of the art may be the insufficient attention of physicists themselves to the development of popular scientific and pedagogical discourse, which makes it possible to correctly introduce the ideas of quantum mechanics into the context of general culture. For decades, physicists have flaunted the kind of esotericism of quantum mechanics. Journalists love to quote the classics of quantum physics: “Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it” (Niels Bohr); “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics” (Richard Feynman); “Quantum mechanics is absolutely meaningless” (Roger Penrose) [1]. Indeed, for many quantum-scale phenomena, no analogues have yet been found in the everyday world, and they are difficult to express in our everyday language. As a result, the introduction to quantum mechanics begins with a description of the mathematical formalism, which becomes an obstacle for the untrained listener and is not suitable for popularization. Moreover, such an approach creates problems for physicists themselves: many of them, studying the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics and being convinced in practice of its effectiveness, do not ask the question of how the founders of this science were able to go in the opposite direction and, starting from experience, find the required formalism. As a result, important problematic and heuristic aspects of the development of science may drop off even professional physicists’ radar. In view of the above, an important task is to find effective explanatory techniques that allow one to talk about quantum phenomena without resorting to mathematical apparatus and without abuse of doubtful metaphors. This article attempts to find such an approach to explaining quantum cryptography. The choice in its favor is determined by the fact that it is one of the most mature quantum technologies of the second generation, which is already beginning to generate a demand for technical specialists to set up and maintain secure quantum communication lines. This activity requires a general understanding of the ideas of quantum mechanics underlying the technology, but at the same time, it does not require full knowledge of the mathematical apparatus that is used in research and development. In accordance with this, the task was set to outline the principle of quantum cryptography without resorting to such abstract concepts as the state space of a quantum system, its bases and the choice between them in quantum measurement. In a popular scientific sense, the advantage of quantum cryptography is a simplicity for understanding. Our experience shows that its main points can be explained to students in about half an hour without extraordinary mental effort. It is also enigmatical and fascinating, since, on the one hand, it is associated with spy codes, and on the other hand, it provides protection based on the laws of nature. Methodologically, the positive aspect of quantum cryptography is valuable. Many fundamental premises of quantum physics are negative: the impossibility of making any measurement without affecting the system, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the nocloning theorem. At the same time, quantum cryptography, on the contrary, allows an absolutely secure distribution of the encryption key.
This paper examines the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics through the lens of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, particularly the concept of “language games” and rule-following. The discourse surrounding quantum mechanics – characterized by terms like superposition, measurement, observer and entanglement – is deeply metaphoric and often stretches the bounds of classical language-use. This creates interpretative confusions not just in science, but in the metaphysical and epistemological debates that follow. Building on Philosophical Investigations, this paper argues that many foundational problems in quantum mechanics (e.g., the measurement problem, wave-function collapse, observer effect) are not exclusively ontological or physical but are entangled in language-use anomalies. The paper proposes that interpretative divergence among schools (Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, QBism, etc.) can be partly understood as conflicts between distinct language games with different rule-sets about what counts as a “measurement”, “reality”, or “causality”. By reading quantum discourse through Wittgensteinian criteria of meaning-as-use, the paper shows how the scientific community performs tacit normativity in deploying quantum terms – frequently without shared agreement on referents. Quantum mechanics, then, becomes a philosophical case study in the fragility and productivity of linguistic scaffolds in scientific theory. Finally, this paper makes a case for a deflationary yet clarifying approach: instead of seeking a “true” interpretation of quantum mechanics, we may better understand the philosophical stakes by analyzing the discursive rules, contextual boundaries, and pragmatic criteria that underlie quantum speech acts.
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