The realized analysis shows internal communication of quantum mechanics with ontological problems which were born in sources of a rational thought and were present in the history of philosophy and science. The quantum theory describes evolution of possibility however Being of an possibility cannot be presented as the ontological subject. It leads us to new understanding of ontology. In article on the basis of plots of quantum mechanics and history of philosophy and science the new definition of Being is given and it allows to see internal unity classical and nonclassical ontology. Basic attribute of Being is two-dimensional action, which can work a) in the form of events or b) at not-event levell (in quantum mechanics it is presented through an interference of amplitudes of probability). Thus, Being comprises two internally connected level - subject and not-subject. Rationally expressed causal relationship of these two measurements is discovery which is made in the quantum theory, but has the general philosophical meaning.
The realized analysis shows internal communication of quantum mechanics with ontological problems which were born in sources of a rational thought and were present in the history of philosophy and science. The quantum theory describes evolution of possibility however Being of an possibility cannot be presented as the ontological subject. It leads us to new understanding of ontology. In article on the basis of plots of quantum mechanics and history of philosophy and science the new definition of Being is given and it allows to see internal unity classical and nonclassical ontology. Basic attribute of Being is two-dimensional action, which can work a) in the form of events or b) at not-event levell (in quantum mechanics it is presented through an interference of amplitudes of probability). Thus, Being comprises two internally connected level - subject and not-subject. Rationally expressed causal relationship of these two measurements is discovery which is made in the quantum theory, but has the general philosophical meaning.
Aristotle was the first to notice that entity exists not only as real, but also as possible. The Aristotelian concept of possibility has an insufficiently clear ontological sense. Aristotle does not ask about own Being of possibilities. For a classical thought it had no essential importance. In quantum physics the situation is different. Quantum possibilities have own action, so, it is necessary to recognize their own Being. However, it cannot be made within usual thinking, since quantum possibilities do not allow representation in terms of an entity present-at-hand. It sends us to Heidegger’s ideas. Classical philosophical thought does not notice an ontological difference between the “Being” and “Entity”; as a result “Being” is presented as “something”. Heidegger showed simplified nature of such approach, however the natural sciences usually accept the specified identification. A surprising exception is the quantum mechanics. Having recognized own Being of quantum possibilities, we will see the attribute of Heidegger’s ontology. This “Being” is not “Something” and is designated by me as “Ψ-Being”. It possesses the internal temporality similar to existential time of Dasein. Also the difference between “Ψ-Being” and “Being” of Heidegger’s ontology is detected. The fact is that “Ψ-Being possesses action which is capable to change definiteness of quantum entity. It offers a heuristic prospect for philosophical ontology. According to Heidegger, Dasein is the existential Being of possibilities. However, these possibilities are not connected with personal definiteness. But the quantum mechanics shows us that definiteness of “entity” (“something” or “who”) can change under the influence of “Being” that cannot be imagined in terms of “something”.
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.
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
This book discusses the ontology in the quantum world and argues that it should be interpreted as a historicized ontology. This perspective is advocated by the quantum histories interpretation. Inspired by the nomological interpretation from Bohmian mechanics and the corresponding understanding of the law of nature and logic, the ontology will be useful to solve the difficulties of confusing ontology and perplexing logical inference. Furthermore, this book proposes that the historicized ontology can be generalized to more complicated structures and fit naturally into temporal correlation. Core philosophical issues such as the law of nature, the ontology of events, history, and processes, and the metaphysics of history are coherently discussed, revealing the profound meaning behind the formalism of quantum histories. By providing a new framework for a historicized picture of ontology, it will effectively promote the debates in the philosophy of physics and the fundamental research in quantum mechanics. This book will appeal to scholars and students of the philosophy of science, metaphysics, and quantum theory.
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.