This paper attempts to analyze the concept of quantum statistical determinism. This is done after we have clarified the epistemic difference between causality and determinism and discussed the content of classical forms of determinism—mechanical and dynamical. Quantum statistical determinism transcends the classical forms, for it expresses the multiple potentialities of quantum systems. The whole argument is consistent with a statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics.

The debate concerning the relations between matter and motion has the same age as philosophy itself. In modern times this problem was transformed into the one concerning the relations between mass and energy. Newton identified mass with matter. Classical thermodynamics brought this conception to its logical conclusion, establishing an ontic dichotomy between mass-matter and energy. On the basis of this pre-relativistic conception, Einstein's famous equation has been interpreted as a relation of equivalence between mass-matter and energy. Nevertheless, if we reject (...) this epistemologically illegitimate identification, it is possible to elaborate a unitary conception of matter, which at the same time is an argument for the unity between matter and motion. In particular, the classical antithesis between matter and field becomes obsolete in the frame of the proposed interpretation. (shrink)

In this paper, I try to refute the Kantian a priorism. At the same time, I try to explain the existence of an a priori concerning space and time on the basis of contemporary neuro-physiology. This a priori is the opposite of the a-historical a priori of Kant. Concerning space and time, I argue that relativity concords with the philosophical thesis that space and time are forms of existence of matter. On the basis of this ontological principle, I support that (...) by accepting the existence of local absolute systems of reference, it is possible to explain some paradoxes of special relativity and at the same time to refute the relativism related to the theory of Einstein. (shrink)

In 1997 an international conference on Aristotle and modern science took place in Thessaloniki. Aristotle’s view of nature—his criticism of the atomists, on the one hand, and modern science, on the other—seem to be widely opposed, but in recent years science has changed so much that scientists resort to certain basic notions of Aristotle’s natural philosophy to underpin their theories and make material nature more intelligible. In a first paper Hilary Putnam argues against Victor Gaston that Aristotle’s theory of cognition (...) is a “ direct realism” and not as many say a theory based on representation. Perception and thinking are in direct contact with things and their properties. In a charming comparison Bas C. van Fraassen argues that both tragedy and science are subspecies of representation. As in poetry, in science the inexplicable is kept off stage. John P. Anton is confident that the revival of Aristotle’s model of science can provide a solution to the question of the unity of the various sciences. He levels a stinging attack at Putnam’s interpretation of Aristotle’s theory of cognition. Lambros Couloubaritsis voices amazement that in Physics IV Aristotle says nothing about the creative capacity of time, but believes that the notion of “appropriate time” will bring this out. James R. Brown argues that the main stream of science stemming from the seventeenth century is a fusion of the Platonic and mechanic traditions, but that in recent years Aristotle has made an impressive comeback. He examines to what extent the notion of potentiality may be in agreement with and help explain certain physical facts perceived by common sense observation, although it does no justice to quantum “ bizarreness”. He sees better help in the Platonic account of formal causality. Speaking about levels of reality Basarab Nicolescu believes that the universe is self-creating, showing an open structure. A flow of information traverses the various levels of reality. The notion of potency, we are told by Ephtichios Bitsakis, exercises quite some attraction on scientists. Indeed, Aristotle is a precursor of scientific realism, but his theories are marred by many inconsistencies: the Prime Mover, final causality, and entelechy contradict his dynamic view of nature and should be abandoned. In the transformation of massive particles into nonmassive ones the actual mass becomes potential. Thomas M. Olshewsky points out that Aristotle has a differentiated notion of prime matter and rejects absolute prime matter. Jagdish Hattiangadi suggests giving up the idea of substance. Demetra Sfendoni-Mentzou also tackles “the always actual question” of what matter is for Aristotle. Nowadays the idea of stable particles has disappeared and we have to deal with what is potentially real. (shrink)