The aim of the research is to develop a dialectical relational-event ontology (DREO), that is, a second-order metaphysical framework designed to resolve the fundamental problems of the philosophy of quantum physics: wave-particle dualism and the irreducible pluralism of interpretations. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the following: for the first time, not just another interpretation of quantum mechanics is proposed, but a meta-framework that dialectically sublates the pluralism of interpretations itself and demonstrates their systemic unity; the category of a "relational event" is introduced as a fundamental unit of being, which marks a transition from substantial metaphysics (debates on the individuality of objects) to a metaphysics of becoming; wave-particle dualism is interpreted not as ontological (two entities) and not as epistemological (N. Bohr's complementarity principle), but as a dialectical contradiction sublated in the concept of "relational potentiality" – a structure of possibilities actualized depending on the perspective; the complementarity of wave and particle for the first time receives ontological status – it is a mode of existence of quantum reality itself as a "pulsation" between modes of actualization; a new model of scientific rationality is substantiated – dialectical pluralism – where truth is not a property of an individual proposition but a property of the entire system of perspectives taken in their dialectical unity, which fundamentally distinguishes DREO from contextual quantum realism (CQR), which remains within the static opposition of "rule – application" and epistemological perspectivism. The key results of the study are the following ideas: a relational event (rather than an object or a relation in itself) is recognized as the fundamental unit of being – a discrete act of transition from the potential to the actual in a specific context of interaction; "particle" and "wave" are interpreted as two extreme, mutually exclusive and simultaneously complementary types of actualization of a single structure of potencies in different perspectives; the multiplicity of incompatible but empirically equivalent interpretations of quantum mechanics is shown not as a flaw in the theory, but as a logical consequence of the relational structure of reality, which requires a multitude of complementary perspectives for its adequate expression. Thus, the century-old opposition between objectivism and relativism in the philosophy of science is removed.
The aim of the research is to develop a dialectical relational-event ontology (DREO), that is, a second-order metaphysical framework designed to resolve the fundamental problems of the philosophy of quantum physics: wave-particle dualism and the irreducible pluralism of interpretations. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the following: for the first time, not just another interpretation of quantum mechanics is proposed, but a meta-framework that dialectically sublates the pluralism of interpretations itself and demonstrates their systemic unity; the category of a "relational event" is introduced as a fundamental unit of being, which marks a transition from substantial metaphysics (debates on the individuality of objects) to a metaphysics of becoming; wave-particle dualism is interpreted not as ontological (two entities) and not as epistemological (N. Bohr's complementarity principle), but as a dialectical contradiction sublated in the concept of "relational potentiality" – a structure of possibilities actualized depending on the perspective; the complementarity of wave and particle for the first time receives ontological status – it is a mode of existence of quantum reality itself as a "pulsation" between modes of actualization; a new model of scientific rationality is substantiated – dialectical pluralism – where truth is not a property of an individual proposition but a property of the entire system of perspectives taken in their dialectical unity, which fundamentally distinguishes DREO from contextual quantum realism (CQR), which remains within the static opposition of "rule – application" and epistemological perspectivism. The key results of the study are the following ideas: a relational event (rather than an object or a relation in itself) is recognized as the fundamental unit of being – a discrete act of transition from the potential to the actual in a specific context of interaction; "particle" and "wave" are interpreted as two extreme, mutually exclusive and simultaneously complementary types of actualization of a single structure of potencies in different perspectives; the multiplicity of incompatible but empirically equivalent interpretations of quantum mechanics is shown not as a flaw in the theory, but as a logical consequence of the relational structure of reality, which requires a multitude of complementary perspectives for its adequate expression. Thus, the century-old opposition between objectivism and relativism in the philosophy of science is removed.
Amid the wide variety of interpretations of quantum mechanics, the notion of a fully coherent ontological interpretation has seen a promising evolution over the last few decades. Despite this progress, however, the old dualistic categorical constraints of subjectivity and objectivity, correlate with the metrically restricted definition of local and global, have remained largely in place – a reflection of the broader, persistent inheritance of these comfortable strictures throughout the evolution of modern science. If one traces this inheritance back to its ancient roots in Plato and Aristotle, it is clear that the coherence, scientific utility, and historical durability of the various natural philosophies that followed have been directly proportional to their commitment, tacit or explicit, to object-oriented realism. As Simondon might put it, it is a commitment to the primacy of individuated substance over the process of individuation. For Whitehead, it is the misplaced assimilation of becoming to being, of potentiality to actuality. Quantum mechanics has challenged this commitment with a combined breadth and depth of force that far exceeds any other theory in the history of science. The theory’s objectively demonstrable empirical application is manifest only by way of a fundamentally subjective, context-dependent mechanism of measurement. More compelling still, actual system states are always actualizations of locally contextualized yet globally conditioned potential system states, such that “globally objective” reality is no longer merely the object of local measurement, but also its product. Thus, any coherent, ontological interpretation of quantum theory must include a conceptual framework by which objectivity and subjectivity, actuality and potentiality, global and local, being and becoming, individuated fact and process of individuation, are no longer understood as merely epistemic, mutually exclusive category pairs descriptive of an already extant, closed reality – but rather as mutually implicative ontological categories explicative of an ontogenetic, open reality-in-process.
The present study is concerned with the problem of realism in quantum mechanics. Contrary to the prevailing view that quantum mechanics forces us to abandon the concept of realism and reality, the author attempts to substantiate another standpoint. Quantum objects indeed exist in a different way from classical bodies. Before the act of measurement begins, one cannot attribute any specific properties to the quantum object observed, as they only occur in the course observation. The concept of observation, however, should not be interpreted as the inclusion of subjective traits in the description of nature. Observation records processes in space and time and establishes the fact of transition from the potential to the reality. The potential is described by a wave function, which in its meaning does not fall in the habitual space and time, whereas the actual is described in terms of a reduction of the wave function, i.e. the transition from a range of possible states to the single one, the observed. Whatever has been observed, in contrast, already belongs to ordinary space and time and can be detected. What follows is that, in quantum mechanics, it is the notion of reality which needs to be reconsidered, not the realism as such rejected. A reconsideration of this sort is conducted here within the framework of a double-modus picture of reality including both potential and actual being, where the quantum level of existence is distinguished from the observed modi of being as described by means of classical concepts. Such a scheme can be described in terms of Aristotelian metaphysics (the fact first pointed out by Heisenberg). The act of transition from potential to actual can be accounted for both in the language of Aristotle’s metaphysics and the language of modern science. In traditional metaphysics it is called the 'principle of individuation', while in modern science it is known as the extended Mach principle. It is argued that the development of these ideas leads to the rejection of Cartesian paradigm in which the existence of a material object always means an existence in space and time.
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 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.
In this article we discuss the problem of finding an interpretation of quantum mechanics which provides an objective account of physical reality. In the first place we discuss the problem of interpretation and analyze the importance of such an objective account in physics. In this context we present the problems which arise when interpreting the quantum wave function within the orthodox formulation of quantum mechanics. In connection to this critic, we expose the concept of 'entity' as an epistemological obstruction. In the second part of this paper we discuss the relation between actuality and potentiality in classical and quantum physics, and continue to present the concept of 'ontological potentiality' which is distinguished from the generic Aristotelian notion of potentiality in terms of 'becoming actual'. In this paper our main aim is to provide an objective interpretation of quantum mechanics which allows us to discuss the meaning of physical reality according to the theory. For this specific propose we present the concept of 'faculty' in place of the concept of 'entity'. Within our theory of faculties, we continue to discuss and interpret two paradigmatic experiments of quantum mechanics such as the double-slit and Schrodinger's cat.
With the advent of quantum theory, the philosophical distinction between “what appears to be” and “what is reasoned to be” has once again, after several centuries of easy dismissal by classical mechanistic materialism, become an important feature of physics. In recent well-regarded interpretations of quantum physics, including those proposed by Robert Griffiths, Roland Omnès, and Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann, we have seen careful investigations into the physical (i.e., not “merely philosophical”) distinction between the order of contingent causal relation and the order of necessary logical implication. I argue that a careful philosophical exploration of the function of the logical order in modern interpretations of quantum physics compels the abandonment of derivative classical, dualistic understandings of “determinism versus indeterminism,” “logical necessity versus causal contingency,” “subject versus object,” “epistemic versus ontological,” among other fundamental dualisms. The incoherence underlying this classical understanding of these principle-pairs as mutually exclusive features of reality can be relieved if they are instead understood as mutually implicative features of fundamental units of relation or “quantum praxes.”