It has been shown at other occasions that recent results of modern physics can be used to shed some more light onto the foundations of the world, provided the actual task of philosophy is being re-interpreted in terms of a theory which is following up the results of science rather than laying the grounds for the latter, contrary to what the original intention of Aristotelian "prima philo- sophia" would imply. As it turns out, the interpretation of the main results of present research dealing with aspects of quantum information theory and quantum gravity, respectively, as well as with self-organized criticality, suffices to re-construct a large class of phenomena not only within the field of physics proper, but also within chemistry, biology, and even the social sciences. We show that questions of ultimate reality and meaning can only be answered within a framework of speculative philosophy which is rooted though in what sceptic philosophy is able to derive from scientific results.
It has been shown at other occasions that recent results of modern physics can be used to shed some more light onto the foundations of the world, provided the actual task of philosophy is being re-interpreted in terms of a theory which is following up the results of science rather than laying the grounds for the latter, contrary to what the original intention of Aristotelian "prima philo- sophia" would imply. As it turns out, the interpretation of the main results of present research dealing with aspects of quantum information theory and quantum gravity, respectively, as well as with self-organized criticality, suffices to re-construct a large class of phenomena not only within the field of physics proper, but also within chemistry, biology, and even the social sciences. We show that questions of ultimate reality and meaning can only be answered within a framework of speculative philosophy which is rooted though in what sceptic philosophy is able to derive from scientific results.
Through both an historical and philosophical analysis of the concept of possibility, we show how including both potentiality and actuality as part of the real is both compatible with experience and contributes to solving key problems of fundamental process and emergence. The book is organized into four main sections that incorporate our routes to potentiality: (1) potentiality in modern science [history and philosophy; quantum physics and complexity]; (2) Relational Realism [ontological interpretation of quantum physics; philosophy and logic]; (3) Process Physics [ontological interpretation of relativity theory; physics and philosophy]; (4) on speculative philosophy and physics [limitations and approximations; process philosophy]. We conclude that certain fundamental problems in modern physics require complementary analyses of certain philosophical and metaphysical issues, and that such scholarship reveals intrinsic features and limits of determinism, potentiality and emergence that enable, among others, important progress on the quantum theory of measurement problem and new understandings of emergence.
This special issue is situated at the interface between Logic and the Foundations of Physics.This interface, though not as active as the logical foundations of mathematics, has long existed-with highlights such as "quantum logic", or studies of the general logical structure of physical theories.In recent years, more themes have come to the fore, and we may be witnessing a revival.The papers presented here emanate from a symposium held at the University of Utrecht in January 2008 with the aim of charting established as well as new connections between the two fields.One of the main questions discussed was whether and how modern techniques coming from logic, computer science and information theory might be combined with state-of-the-art insights in the philosophy of physics to gain a better understanding of the main foundational issues and open problems in modern physics.The success of this symposium has shown that there are several possible answers to this question.
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.
During the past two or three centuries western philosophy and science have confirmed each other in their ontological attitude towards external reality. The particular opinion that physical objects have an existence completely independent of observation was established as the necessary basis for all scientific investigation. The discovery in quantum physics that the phenomena ultimately constituting the stability of the material world cannot be separated from the instruments of observation was necessarily felt disastrous to the scientific world-picture, and many philosophers and scientists, including celebrated physicists, are still trying by all means to save ontology in quantum physics. The motive power behind this activity is the belief that the objectivity of science can be maintained only if the elementary particles of matter can be objectified in the usual way. The present chapter deals with the fundamental conditions in quantum physics which entail a complete breakdown of the conceptual frame of classical mechanics
The findings of physics at the beginning of the last century have caused a revolutionary change in our commonly accepted view of the world. Because of their seemingly paradoxical features the philosophical consequences of the new insights, however, were never really adopted by the scientific community despite the quite apparent and far-reaching technical innovations they enabled. The new so-called „quantum“ physics revealed that the world at its foundation is no longer the familiar, tangible (thing-like) reality but rather a holistic immaterial „gestalt“: pure „interconnectedness“, inseparable „potentiality“. Its evolution in time does not follow from strictly determined laws but is only guided by certain inherent tendencies exhibited in terms of definite probabilities for possible material-energetic realizations. Generally these realizations recover the appearance of the familiar classical world as an objective reality with rigorous dynamic laws. In contrast to the old world view, where matter, consisting of discrete, constant building blocks, ranks first, and its various forms result secondarily from different law-determined arrangements of these building blocks, the situation in the modern view is turned around: Relationship or „gestalt“ or „information“ is now more fundamental and substance or matter/energy appears subsequently as an as-if phenomenon on the macroscopic level. The new world view sets limits to knowledge and the related science on principle. It proves to be very powerful because it establishes bridges between all disciplines and hitherto conflicting paradigms and descriptions. In particular in this more open framework the non-living and living phenomena (including the human species) no longer appear as basically different, but as two different structures of the same immaterial essence, relating respectively to static stable and static instable (highly sensitive), but dynamically stabilised (homeostatic) configurations. In such a „basically alive“ world biology and medicine, therefore, have to accept that logistically the immaterial, information-type (“spiritual“) software in the background becomes more important than the (physical) hardware being guided by it. The well-known difficulty of complementary medicine – and in particular of homeopathy with its impressive healing record – to explain its experience in the language of the old science, based on substances and a mechanistic dynamic, may thus be resolved within the more open and flexible framework of modern „science“, in which knowledge has a more open meaning (due to basic indeterminism) offering many more dimensions for healing to the devoted healer. The observation of a highly diversified filigree crystalline structure of (liquid) water, as demonstrated by recent studies, may represent a material/energetic print-out of the hidden information coded in the basic immaterial software.
ENERAL philosophy claims to be the critical subject which lays down for all of us what we may be allowed to think, and yet it has played no part whatever in the great revolutions of human thought of the present century-those connected with relativity and the quantum theory. It might have been expected that the scientists would have been constantly consulting the philosophers as to the legitimacy of their various speculations, but nothing of the kind has happened. Since no one can dispense with some sort of metaphysic, each scientist has made one for himself, and no doubt they contain many crudities, but it would seem that a deep interest in metaphysic is a disadvantage rather than an advantage to the physicist-at least I have the impression that those of my friends who are most inclined to speculate on the ultimate things appear to be the ones whose scientific work is most hampered by doing so. Now I propose to risk a similar indiscretion. I want to embody in it the practical philosophy of a physicist, and I do not mean it as an attack on the pure philosophers, who are very reasonable people, only chargeable with the minor offence of not having made me want to read their books! I had better begin by stating shortly the ideas I intend to discuss. There is a notable contrast between the way we think about things and the way we think we ought to think about them.