This article proposes a philosophical interpretation of quantum physics and myth as two complementary limit-languages of describing reality. Quantum mechanics is considered as a maximally formalized, impersonal framework for articulating the non-classical relational structure of physical reality. Myth is interpreted as an imagistic and experiential mode of engaging with a similar notion of wholeness. It is argued that the human subject, within a mythological ontology, should not be understood as an autonomous entity but as a relational node within a broader structure of reality. The article situates this proposal in relation to major interpretations of quantum mechanics, including the Copenhagen interpretation, QBism, and relational quantum mechanics. Author portal: https://sites.google.com/view/yermakov-orcid
This article proposes a philosophical interpretation of quantum physics and myth as two complementary limit-languages of describing reality. Quantum mechanics is considered as a maximally formalized, impersonal framework for articulating the non-classical relational structure of physical reality. Myth is interpreted as an imagistic and experiential mode of engaging with a similar notion of wholeness. It is argued that the human subject, within a mythological ontology, should not be understood as an autonomous entity but as a relational node within a broader structure of reality. The article situates this proposal in relation to major interpretations of quantum mechanics, including the Copenhagen interpretation, QBism, and relational quantum mechanics. Author portal: https://sites.google.com/view/yermakov-orcid
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
We present a historical-epistemological analysis of the foundations of quantum mechanics, highlighting the relationships between quantum mechanics and scientific realism, as well as the influence of the neo-positivist philosophy of the first decades of the 20th century. The great significance of the measurement process in the context of quantum mechanics is underlined as an essential element in providing a coherent description of reality, moving from micro to macrocosm, as well as the role that the measurement apparatus and the consciousness of the observer assume during the act of measurement, the related ontological problems, the question of the objectification of the wave function, and that of the definition of discernibility. We consider also an overview of the most important alternative proposals to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics (Copenhagen interpretation), with particular reference to hidden variable theories and other alternatives to standard quantum mechanics philosophical approach, that are modifying the vision of reality, such as the Everett’s many-worlds theory, the QBism and unified holistic approaches, such as the Primordial Dynamic Space.
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.
I suggest a contextual realist interpretation of Carlo Rovelli’s relational quantum mechanics. The principal point is a correct understanding of the concept of reality and taking into account the categorical distinction between the ideal and the real. Within my interpretation, consciousness of the observer does not play any metaphysical role. The proposed approach can also be understood as a return to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, corrected within the framework of contextual realism. The contextual realism allows one to get rid of the metaphysical problems encountered by various interpretations of quantum mechanics, including the relational one. A wave function neither literally reflects an “exterior reality”, nor is it merely a predictive mathematical tool. In particular, an entangled wave function can be viewed as the formal cause of quantum correlations whose reality is contextual. The reduction of a wave function is not a real physical process. And there are no autonomous quantum events which would be different from the facts of their representation. The quantum measurement problem results from a confusion between the categories of the ideal and the real. It is dissolved logically. The quantum theory plays the role of a Wittgensteinian rule (norm), “measuring” physical reality within a language game of its application.
The article proposes a philosophical and ontological interpretation of the concept of the “quantum” as a symbolic and structural image of the One Being. Drawing on quantum physics, philosophy of science, and the works of S. Lem and A. Tarkovsky, it argues that quantum reality can be understood not only as a physical model of the micro-world, but also as an epistemological mirror reflecting the structure of human consciousness. The paper demonstrates the inseparable relation between observer and observed as a fundamental principle of reality that transcends classical dualistic ontology. It concludes that the concept of truth must be reconsidered in terms of wholeness and ontological unity. ___________________________________ Статья предлагает философско-онтологическую интерпретацию понятия «квант» как символа и структурного образа Единого Бытия. На основе синтеза идей квантовой физики, философии науки и анализа художественных произведений С. Лема и А. Тарковского показано, что квантовая реальность может быть осмыслена не только как физическая модель микромира, но и как эпистемологическое зеркало, отражающее структуру человеческого сознания. Обосновывается положение о неразрывной связи наблюдателя и наблюдаемого как фундаментальном принципе реальности, выходящем за пределы классической дуалистической онтологии. Делается вывод о необходимости переосмысления понятия истины в терминах целостности и онтологического единства.
Quantum mechanics is often perceived as conceptually paradoxical because it appears to conflict with deeply rooted intuitions about fixed reality, determinism, and observation. This paper does not propose a new physical theory. Instead, it offers an epistemological reframing of quantum mechanics: not as a direct mathematical unveiling of a fully fixed pre-existing reality, but as a highly precise description of phenomenological structures emerging through observational conditions and interaction. The paper explores: the distinction between mathematical predictive success and ontological completeness, the role of human perception in constructing “fixed reality” intuitions, the phenomenological nature of qualities such as color and temperature, the possibility that some conceptual tensions in quantum mechanics arise from assumptions inherited from macroscopic cognition, and how quantum theory may be interpreted as describing observable structures rather than fixed hidden states. The work intentionally avoids mystical, anti-scientific, or consciousness-centric interpretations of quantum mechanics. It does not deny the existence of reality, nor reject modern physics. Rather, it attempts to clarify what exactly mathematical models are describing when applied to quantum phenomena. This text is positioned as a conceptual and phenomenological reorganization of perspective — a small doorway toward reconsidering how humans frame “reality” itself.