Abstract

Od samih početaka razvoja kvantne mehanike javlja se potreba metafizičkog razgraničenja “makro” svijeta opisanog “svakodnevnim jezikom” i “mikro” svijeta kojim se bavi formalizam teorije . U tekstu se raspravlja o potrebi pomirenja ovako umjetno razgraničenih svjetova, uz pregled najvažnijih pravaca tumačenja formalizma teorije. Posebno se izlaže Bohrovo “kopenhaško” tumačenje i problemi koje pred njega postavlja EPR misaoni eksperiment. Pregledom Bohrovih odgovora na dani eksperiment, pokazuje se da njegovo tumačenje traži više od ograničenja svakodnevne deskriptivne metafizike pri opisu pojava na mikro-nivou. Na taj način gubi se Bohrovo povlašteno mjesto meðu tumačenjima formalizma teorije. Pokazuje se da se niti MacKinnonov detaljniji shematski prikaz spajanja teoretskog i svakodnevnog jezika ne može primijeniti na zaključke EPR eksperimenta i Bohorov odgovor na njih. Sam MacKinnon nudi prijedloge izmjena “svakodnevnog” jezika uvjetovane matematičkim zaključcima kvantne mehanike, ali se i one pokazuju previše radikalnima i grubima da bi zauzele povlašteno mjesto u odnosu na ostala tumačenja teoretskog formalizma koja sa sobom nose velike ontološke i konceptualne zahtjeve.Ever since the beginning of development of Quantum Mechanics there was a metaphysical division between the “macro” world as described in “everyday language” and the “micro” world described by quantum formalism . A discussion is offered of the need to reunite these arbitrarily divided worlds through an overview of the main interpretations of the formalism. Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation, as well as the problems it faces due to EPR thought experiment, is presented in greater detail. It is claimed that Bohr’s answers to the said experiment demand more than a restriction of everyday descriptive metaphysics, when describing phenomena at the micro-level. Thus, the special place Bohr’s interpretation takes among other interpretations of the formalism is forfeited. It is also shown that MacKinnon’s more detailed schema aiming to connect the theoretical and everyday language cannot be applied to EPR conclusions and Bohr’s reply to those. MacKinnon’s own modifications of the “everyday language” induced by the mathematical conclusions of Quantum Mechanics are considered too radical and too coarse to take the vacated special place among formalism interpretations