Quale mechanics as a metaphysical weltanschauung of Quantum Mechanics

- from a transcendental point of view, i.e. from the point of view starting from the QMAS and heading towards the human preceptor (the observer), it has not been answered which of the QM interpretations (Copenhagen, Bohm - de Broglie etc.) is correct. As a matter of fact, recently it has been shown that neither of interpretations known to date can be correct (Frauchiger & Renner, 2018);

- from a transcendental point of view, i.e. from the point view departing on the opposing side from the QMAS towards a deeper essence of truth, it can be stated that all effects (including the QMAS itself) in the Universe can be traced back, cause by cause, to a cause that will eventually had to be taken place prior the Planck time, in a time in which all human-conceived theories are no longer valid.

From a philosophical perspective, the Planck Era of the Universe can be regarded as the matrix of mystery and the primeval source of what Lucian Blaga refers to as “luciferian knowledge” (Blaga, 2013). Through this term, the philosopher considers that type of knowing by which “through the initial act, it (i.e the luciferian knowledge) considers its object cleaved in two, in one part which reveals itself and in one which conceals itself. The object of luciferian knowledge is always a mystery, a mystery which through its signs, on the one hand, reveals itself and on the other conceals itself” (Blaga, 2013, p. 253).

In Blaga's philosophical system, the luciferian knowledge is complemented by the paradisiac knowledge. The terminology used by Blaga is strictly restricted to its etymological sense. Namely luciferian is used with its original sense, that of bringer of light (the etymology of the word is found in the Latin words lux, meaning light, and fero, meaning carrier, bearer). On the other hand, the paradisiac term borrows its mythological sense and reflects the illo tempore condition “when” everything was in good order, everything in equilibrium and furthermore everything was known. Perhaps an example can elucidate the meaning and usage of these two terms. Let us consider a celestial object that can be visible on a night sky. We assume that no astronomical instruments are at our disposal so that, in observing the celestial object, we rely solely on our eyesight. In this configuration, the celestial body can be regarded as a mysterious object subject to a luciferian type of knowledge in the sense that the light arriving from it offers positivistic aspects regarding its location and brightness, but simultaneously the same arrived light is the factor that obscures the object's essence.

Thus, although some aspects of its being are revealed, its nature remains hindered to us and we cannot know exactly if the celestial body is, for instance, a star or planet Venus. In Blagian words, the sign by which the celestial object manifests itself simultaneously reveals and conceals its characteristic aspects. This line of thought can be extended as the technological and theoretical instruments required for understanding the celestial body evolve. For instance, it might be shown that the object is in fact a star and now the mystery is further descended to the question “how does it produce the light by which it is seen?” Upon understanding that the respective light is produced by nuclear fusion, the mystery is shrunk to the question “why does nuclear fusion produce light?”. This can be understood from the perspective of the Special Theory of Relativity (STR), which provides the equivalency between matter and energy together with the law that governs their transformation (i.e., E = mc²). From STR's perspective, the now acquired information is of an epistemological level because this transformation law can be decomposed to STR's axiomatic system. For instance, one such axiom would be that light travels at constant speed in all relative reference systems. Within the STR framework the question “why does light travel at a const ant speed regardless of reference system?” is an invalid question because its domain of applicability lies outside that of STR.

Thus, from STR's perspective, the knowledge has reached an ерйуфЮмз level that corresponds to a paradisiac type of knowledge as all that can be known, within STR's boundaries, is known. Pushing the question outside the STR domain would require a further (more profound?) theory in which, now, the STR - epistemic knowledge would be degraded to, at best, a дйЬнпйб level. Now we are left with the impression that the pursuit of knowledge itself could be painted via encircled cycles which, by concentrically collapsing within themselves, provide the transition towards more fundamental stages. This picture in itself implies a fundamental axiom that governs all axiomatic systems of each theoretical stage: that within each stage there are at least two levels of knowledge, one corresponding to ерйуфЮмз and one to дйЬнпйб. Perhaps at one point, a stage in which all available knowledge is of ерйуфЮмз nature and thus, this axiom among axiom might also lose its domain of applicability. Nevertheless, each of the aforementioned steps employed in the transition between the stages of acquired knowledge, from simply observing the celestial body all the way to the axioms of Special Relativity, correspond to what Blaga refers to as the crisis of the object.

The act of questioning the paradisiac pillars of the heory triggers a crisis that, by deepening the foundation of the paradisiac theory into mystery, becomes the basis of the new luciferian knowledge.

Converged to the Planck Era is also the metaphysical endeavor towards fundamentals. In this case, similar to the space bordering a black hole's horizon that generates In terms of the same uncertainty considerations explained for the Casimir effect (cf. Figure 3), the vacuum surrounding a black hole will generate pairs of particles and antiparticles. At the black hole's horizon, i.e. the region of space from which nothing can escape its gravitational attraction, the pairing will be disrupted: one of the generated particle will be initially oriented towards the black hole and by passing through its horizon will not be able to return to its partner particle and annihilate; the paired particle, initially being oriented oppositely to the black hole, will have the chance to evade its gravitational sink. The net result is called the Hawking radiation (being formed from the evaded particles). The swallowe d antiparticles will eventually lead to the black hole's evaporation. Hawking radiation “out of nothing”, (Hawking, 1975) the space-time region corresponding to the Planck Era can be seen engulfed within the fundamental question of metaphysics: why is there entity instead of nothingness? The domain of this question covers all that is, was and will be within the Universe and ends where it can no longer be asserted about anything as being Being: the Planck Era. As put by Heidegger: “The domain of this question is limited only by what simply is not and never is: by Nothing. All that is not Nothing comes into the question, and in the end even Nothing itself - not, as it were, because it is something, an entity, for after all we are talking about it, but because it "is"Nothing?”. (Heidegger, 2000, p. 2) The true Nothing is that out of which the Big Bang presumably commenced (as explained for the Casimir effect, the vacuum is not really empty, is not a nothing). Furthermore, the Plank Era is the only era which is limited at one end by Nothing and at the other by something in which entities exist. By continuing this line of thought, we can identify two types of eras from now on. One of them (a single era in this category) starts from the end of the Planck Era and lasts for as much as needed for an entity to come into existence. Thus, this era belongs to something that has entity and, being the first of this kind, is limited on one side by the Planck era and at the other by something that has entities. From here onwards, all eras, no matter how divided, will always be delimited by entity -containing eras. How does that first entity come into existence? Physically, it just transitioned from the previous era in the form of the primeval radiation and can be imagined as a collision of two photons generating matter in the form of particle-antiparticle pairs. By having converted energy into mass, space and time come as byproducts of this process (from the General Theory of Relativity it is known that space and time cannot exist in the absence of matter, just as well as matter cannot exist in a framework outside space and time), and from now onwards the space-time stage is set for all entities to exist. Metaphysically, existence implies the transition from Being to Entity, the manifestation of a Being through Entity. To better understand the difference between the two latter terms we can follow one the subtle examples provided by Heidegger:

“Over there, on the other side of the street, stands the high school building. An entity. We can scour every side of the building from the outside, roam through the inside from basement to attic, and note everything that can be found there: hallways, stairs, classrooms, and their furnishings. Everywhere we find entities, and in a very definite order. Where now is the Being of this high school? It is, after all. The building is. The Being of this entity belongs to it if anything does, and nevertheless we do not find this Being within the entity. Moreover, Being does not consist in our observing entity. The building stands there even if we do not observe it. We can come across it only because it already is. In addition, the Being of this building does not at all seem to be identical for everybody. For us, as observers or passers-by, it is not what it is for the students who sit inside, not just because they see it only from the inside but because for them this building really is what it is and how it is. One can, as it were, smell the Being of such buildings, and often after decades one still has the scent in one's nose. The scent provides the Being of this entity much more directly and truly than it could be communicated by any description or inspection. On the other hand, the subsistence of the building does not depend on this scent that is hovering around somewhere” (Heidegger, 2000, pp. 35-36).

For the ancient Greeks, being meant either something standing in itself, when referred to by ц?уйт (fusis), either something constant, enduring, when referred to through the word п?уЯб (ousia). To exit from such a state meant to no longer be and the word used to describe this was ?оЯуфбуибй (existasthai). Perhaps the etymology of the English word “exit” might be traced to the Greek ?оЯуфбуибй.

To bring a being into existence means to transpose it into an entity. Thus, the original, Greek meaning of existence implied to no longer be. Similar to how in the quantum mechanical language, upon measurement, a wavefunction expressed in the Hilbert space collapses into one of its eigenstates expressed in the real space (i.e. fourth QM axiom), in the language of metaphysics bringing a being into existence collapses it into entity. Similar to how a wavefunction cannot be directly observed, but only grasped through its manifestation upon collapsing into to real space (and further observed via a quantity derived from its square modulus), the metaphysical being cannot be physically reached but only grasped through its entity manifestation. Both being and wavefunction, however, can be reached and tangled through the human intellect. Both are of suprasensible nature and are susceptible in collapsing into sensible manifestations (cf. Figure 5).

Figure 5. Parallel between Metaphysics (left) and Quantum Mechanics (right) (Author's figure).

In its uniqueness, the Being is only matched by the non-Being (Heidegger, 2000, pp. 80-84). The two concepts find themselves in a complementary relationship similar to the complementary quantities appearing in the uncertainty relationship responsible for the vacuum generation of virtual particles and antiparticles.

Being of suprasensible nature, the Being can be asserted within the фьрпт нпзфьт (topos noetos) and therefore sharing ground with the eide. The entity on the other hand, is by the virtue of its sensible nature an object within the кьумпт (cosmos) and therefore sharing ground with the aistheta. Thus a third parallel represented by the eide - aistheta binomial can be traced to the previous two parallels. Now, the fully deterministic wavefunction expressed within the Hilbert space can be translated to an ancient Greek as a sort of eidos belonging to the фьрпт нпзфьт that by collapsing, in a similar way to which the eide enter in participation (methexis), can be observed within the real space similar to how an aistheton is sensed within the кьумпт

Conclusions

Quale Mechanics is proposed as a Weltanschauung that can be used as an aid to better grasp abstract notions of Quantum Mechanics by providing bridging links to Metaphysics. From a practical perspective, its use can be expected to ease the imagination process of a novice (possessing a Chemistry or Physical Chemistry background) that might become beneficial for its creative quantum mechanical endeavours. Reversely - for a Quantum Mechanics initiated - Quale Mechanics can serve as a diving point into Metaphysics.

Throughout the text it was followed how the discrete was discerned from the continuous in order to arrive at the construction of the parallel between the metaphysical existence and the quantum physical wavefunction collapse (cf. Figure 5). Thus it was shown that, within its underlying, Quantum Mechanics is not a revolution of thought, but merely a reiteration of a Weltanschauung previously shared by the ancient Greeks - a fruitful reiteration, nonetheless.

For future development, one may further explore the influence of the sensible- suprasensible dichotomy on the history of the development of science, with particular emphasize to its impact on the Quantum domain.

“It is the study of the Chemists to liberate that unsensual truth from its fetters in things of sense'' was once said by the alchemist Dorneus (Jung, 1959, p. 201). With respect to this view of Dorneus, Quale Mechanics - as presented here - is a study of the Chemists.

References

1. Abbott, A. (2012a). Plagiarism charge for Romanian minister. Nature, 485(7398), 289.

2. Abbott, A. (2012b). Romanian scientists fight plagiarism. Nature, 488(7411), 264265.

3. Atkins, P., & Friedman, R. (2011). Molecular Quantum Mechanics (Fifth Edit). New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

4. Blaga, L. (2013). Trilogia Cunoasterii. Bucuresti: Humanitas [in Romanian].

5. Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London and New York: Routledge Classics.

6. Boudry, M., Blancke, S., & Pigliucci, M. (2015). What makes weird beliefs thrive? The epidemiology of pseudoscience. Philosophical Psychology, 28(8), 11771198.

7. Florian, R. (2006). Oamenii de stiinta din Romania si recunoasterea rezultatelor lor [Romanian scientists, and their recognition]. Ad Astra Journal [Ad-Astra], 5(1), 1-15.

8. Frauchiger, D., & Renner, R. (2018). Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1-10.

9. Hansson, S.O. (2017). Science denial as a form of pseudoscience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 63, 39-47.

10. Hawking, S.W. (1975). Particle Creation by Black Holes. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 43, 199-220.

11. Heidegger, M. (2000). Introduction to Metaphysics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

12. Heisenberg, W. (1979). Philosophic Problems of Quantum Physics. Woodbridge, CT: Pantheon Book Inc.

13. Hund, F. (1974). The History of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Harrap & Co. Ltd.

14. Jung, C.G. (1959). Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self (H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler, & W. McGuire (Eds.); Second Edition). Princteon: Princteon University Press.

15. Jung, C.G. (1960). The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche (H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler, & W. McGuire (Eds.), (Second Edition). Princteon: Princteon University Press.

16. Korotayev, A., Romanov, D., & Medvedev, I. (2019). Echo of the Arab Spring in Eastern Europe: A Quantitative Analysis. Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie, 18(1), 56-106.

17. Lightman, A.P. (2009). The discoveries: great breakthroughs in 20th-century science, including the original papers. New York: Vintage.

18. Longair, M. (2013). Quantum Concepts in Physics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

19. Matute, H., Yarritu, I., & Vadillo, M. A. (2011). Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience. British Journal of Psychology, 102(3), 392-405.

20. Peters, F.E. (1967). Greek Philosophical Terms. New York: New York University Press.

21. Piela, L. (2014). Ideas of Quantum Chemistry (Second Edition). Elsevier.

22. Schiermeier, Q. (2012). Romanian prime minister accused of plagiarism. Nature, 486(7403), 305.

23. Schoijet, M. (2009). On pseudoscience. Critique, 37(3), 425-439.

24. Sernelius, B. E. (2009). Gravitation as a casimir effect. International Journal of Modern Physics A, 24(8-9), 1804-1812.

25. Shermer, M. (1997). Why People Believe Weird Things Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York: W.H. Freeman.

26. Shermer, M. (2011). What is Pseudoscience? Scientific American, 3(3), 92-92.

27. Silaghi-Dumitrescu, R. (2018). Feudalism in modern eastern Europe. Balkanistic Forum, 1, 11-15.

28. Silaghi-Dumitrescu, R. (2021a). Measuring pseudoscience in online media: a case study on Romanian websites. Journal of Romanian Studies, 3(2), 111-128.

29. Silaghi-Dumitrescu, R. (2021b). Sa ascultam institutiile de stiinta din Romania. Spundnd... ce? - Opinii - HotNews.ro. HotNews.Ro.

30. Silaghi-Dumitrescu, R. (2021c). Masurile anti-COVID din Romania: ce ne permite stiinta sa criticam? Sau: despre “Romania Educata” - Opinii - HotNews.ro. HotNews.Ro.

31. Silaghi-Dumitrescu, R., & Sabau, A. (2014). Scientometric analysis of relative performance in a key university in Romania. Scientometrics, 99(2), 463-474.

32. Smith, I.M., & MacDonald, N.E. (2017). Countering evidence denial and the promotion of pseudoscience in autism spectrum disorder. Autism Research, 10, 1334-1337.

33. Strauss, V. (2014). Russia's plagiarism problem: Even Putin has done it! - The Washington Post. Washington Post. Retrieved from

34. Van Kline, M. (2022). Romania's Constitutional Court rules that plagiarists can retain their doctoral degree. Romania Insider.

35. Wallis, R. (1985). Science and pseudo-science. Social Science Information, 24(3), 585-601

Размещено на Allbest.Ru