Я интерпретирую философские взгляды Вернера Гайзенберга как прагматизм и неметафизический реализм виттгенштайновского типа. «Замкнутая теория» – виттгенштайновское правило/концепт. В отличие от Бокулич, предпочитающей позицию Дирака относительно природы связей между различными физическими теориями, я отдаю предпочтение позиции Гайзенберга. Моя позиция, интерпретирующая Гайзенберга, также прямо противоположна позиции Поппера: критерием устоявшейся научной (замкнутой) теории является её нефальсифицируемость. -/- I interpret philosophical views of Werner Heisenberg as a pragmatism and non-metaphysical realism of a Wittgensteinian kind. The “closed theory” is a Wittgensteinian rule/concept. Unlike Alisa (...) Bokulich, favouring Dirac’s position about inter-theoretical relations, I favour Heisenberg’s one. My position, interpreting Heisenberg’s notion of a closed theory, is also in direct opposition to Popper’s one: the criterion of an established scientific (closed) theory is its non-falsifiability. (shrink)

In his recent paper, C. Fuchs formulates QBism in the form of eight postulates. We criticise QBism as an anti-realist position and propose an alternative – contextual quantum realism (QCR). 1. A quantum state is not “an agent’s personal judgement” (QBism), nor is it subjective (QBism), but objective (QCR). It describes not the current experience (QBism), but a state of a physical system in context (QCR). 2. A quantum measurement is a (literally) measurement of quantum reality (QCR), rather than an (...) agent’s action upon its external world (QBism). It can only be regarded as an action in the sense in which a cognitive Wittgensteinian language game is an action (QCR). 3. The result of a quantum meas- urement is objective, though context-sensitive (QCR), rather than subjective (QBism), personal to the agent performing the action (QBism). 4. The quantum formalism is normative (QCR and QBism) and at the same time descriptive (QCR). The wave function tells us what to expect and how a quantum experiment should be conducted (i.e. plays the role of a norm), and also describes the state of a quantum system in context (QCR). 5. Unitary evolution is objective (QCR), not subjective (QBism). It does not express an agent’s degrees of belief (QBism). 6. Probability 1 is ontic (QCR), not an agent’s maximum degree of subjective certainty without ontic content (QBism). 7. In general, measurement outcomes are not predetermined (QCR and QBism), i.e. “unperformed measurements have no outcomes” (for QCR, this is an analytical judgement; for QBism this is a thesis), but they are predeter- mined in the case of probabilities 1 and 0 (QCR). In the case of probabilities 0 and 1, one can speak of performed measurements (QCR). 8. Quantum theory is a universal Wittgen- steinian rule (norm), i.e. a rule (norm) rooted in experience, reality (QCR). It can be used by any competent subject (QCR and QBism). We illustrate the difference between QCR and QBism on the example of how they treat “Wigner’s friend” thought experiment and consider their attitude to phenomenology. (shrink)

В статье анализируется предложенный Кристофом Келпом подход к знанию, синтезирующий эпистемологию способностей (эпистемология Эрнеста Соза и другие) и эпистемологию, принимающую концепт знания в качестве первичного концепта (эпистемология Тимоти Уильямсона и другие). Предложенный синтез устраняет некоторые проблемы, с которыми сталкиваются эпистемологические дисджонктивизмы Дункана Притчарда и Алена Миллара, а также «чистая» эпистемология способностей. В то же время, как мы утверждаем, подход Келпа имеет свои собственные недостатки, которые отсутствуют в эпистемологии Уильямсона. Последняя является более фундаментальным подходом. Более того, она совместима с эпистемологией Витгенштейна. (...) Мы комбинируем аналитический и прагматический методы исследования и интерпретируем подход Келпа в витгенштейновских терминах. Мы трактуем парадигматическое перцептивное знание в терминах «осевых предложений», а то, что Келп называет «подходящим мнением» как «успешное мнение» в смысле проблемы следования правилу. На наш взгляд, витгенштейновская интерпретация позволяет улучшить предложенный Келпом синтез двух эпистемологий. Мы утверждаем, что знание есть «успешное мнение». Эта трактовка совпадает с классической трактовкой знания как обоснованного истинного мнения, при условии, что обоснование является полным, то есть «провал» между ним и фактом закрыт. -/- Abstract The article analyzes Christophe Kelp's approach to knowledge, synthesizing virtue epistemology (Ernest Sosa’s epistemology, etc.) and knowledge first epistemology (Timothy Williamson's epistemology, etc.). The proposed synthesis avoids some of the problems encountered by Duncan Pritchard and Alain Millar's epistemological disjunctivisms, as well as “pure” virtue epistemology. At the same time, as we claim, Kelp's approach has its own shortcomings, which are absent in Williamson's epistemology. The latter is a more fundamental approach. Moreover, it is compatible with the epistemology of Wittgenstein. We combine analytical and pragmatic research methods and interpret Kelp’s approach in Wittgensteinian terms. We treat paradigmatic perceptual knowledge in terms of “hinge propositions”, and what Kelp calls “apt belief” as a “successful belief” in the sense of the rule-following problem. In our view, Wittgenstein's interpretation allows one to improve Kelp's synthesis of two epistemologies. We claim that knowledge is «successful belief». This interpretation coincides with the classical definition of knowledge as true justified belief, provided that the justification is complete, that is, the «gap» between it and the fact is closed. (shrink)

I interpret the philosophical views of Werner Heisenberg as a pragmatism and non-metaphysical realism of a Wittgensteinian kind. The “closed theory” is a Wittgensteinian rule/concept.

I present the new realist philosophy by Jocelyn Benoist, in particular, his solution to the problem of the explanatory gap in the philosophy of mind.

I claim that Heisenberg’s notion of a closed theory and its analysis by Erhard Scheibe fit well with the philosophy of later Wittgenstein or its generalization. The notion of a closed theory corresponds to the notions of a form of life and rule/concept. I suggest the possibility of reconciling the views of Heisenberg, Dirac, and Bohr about inter-theoretical relations within a rational naturalistic pragmatism à la Wittgenstein and Robert Brandom’s analytic interpretation of Kantian synthetic unity of apperception. In particular, I (...) explain why a “closed theory” is “closed”, “accurate” (and even “perfect”), and “final” (as Heisenberg claims), and why it is also “open” and “approximate” in Dirac’s sense. That being said, unlike Alisa Bokulich (2004, 2006, 2008), I rather favour Heisenberg’s philosophical position. (shrink)