Delayed-choice erasure is investigated in two-photon two-slit experiments that are generalizations of the micromaser experiment of Scully et al. (Nature 351:111–116, 1991). Applying quantum mechanics to the localization detector, it is shown that erasure with delayed choice in the sense of Scully, has an analogous structure as simple erasure. The description goes beyond probabilities. The EPR-type disentanglement, consisting in two mutually incompatible distant measurements, is used as a general framework in both parts of this study. Two simple coherence cases are (...) shown to emerge naturally, and they are precisely the two experiments of Scully et al. The treatment seems to require the relative-reality-of-unitarily-evolving-state (RRUES) approach. Besides insight in the experiments, this study has also the goal of insight in quantum mechanics. The question is if the latter can be more than just a “book-keeping device” for calculating probabilities as Scully et al. modestly and cautiously claim. (shrink)

It was pointed out in the first part of this study (Herbut in Found. Phys. 38:1046–1064, 2008) that EPR-type entanglement is defined by the possibility of performing any of two mutually incompatible distant, i.e., direct-interaction-free, measurements. They go together under the term ‘EPR-type disentanglement’. In this second part, quantum-mechanical insight is gained in the real random delayed-choice erasure experiment of Kim et al. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 84:1–5, 2000) by a relative-reality-of-unitarily-evolving-state (RRUES) approach (explained in the first part). Finally, it (...) is shown that this remarkable experiment, which performs, by random choice, two incompatible measurements at the same time, is actually an EPR-type disentanglement experiment, closely related to the micromaser experiment discussed in the first part. (shrink)

Author: Herbut Józef Title: DIRECTIONS AND PROBLEMS IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION (Filozofia religii: jej problematyka i jej odmiany) Source: Filo-Sofija year: 2011, vol:.15, number: 2011/4, pages: 911-917 Keywords: PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION, ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION, PHENOMENOLOGY OF RELIGION, DEFINITION OF RELIGION, RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE Discipline: PHILOSOPHY Language: POLISH Document type: ARTICLE Publication order reference (Primary author’s office address): E-mail: www:The main task of the philosophy of religion is to adequately define the concept of religion – it should (...) be comprehensive enough to cover all historically known forms of religion and restrictive enough to exclude any other cultural forms which are only similar to religion. How we understand the nature of religious beliefs (their propositional, volitional and emotional content) determines the method of philosophizing about religion. The religious doctrine plays a decisive role in religion, in one way or another motivating and justifying moral norms and worship practices. Traditionally oriented philosophers of religion have been chiefly interested in reasons for accepting a religious doctrine and in metaphysical problems; analytical philosophy of religion has brought into focus the semiotics of religious propositions. (shrink)

The concept of retroactive apparent occurrence, the main ingredient of Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiments, is systematically incorporated into the quantum theory of measurement (in the framework of the recent review of Busch, Lahti, and Mittelstaedt). Besides, the (general) notion of individual-system measurement is introduced, and, due to it, premeasurement is defined by a truly minimal condition. Finally, retroactive apparent occurrence is made use of to derive apparent objectification in measurement. The derivation is discussed in the framework of the quantum mechanical (...) approach to the objectification problem. (shrink)

In his Logic of Religion (1965) Bocheński presumed that: (1) ‘religion’ denotes a system of propositions of religious contents, (2) man becomes an advocate of a certain religion through an acceptance of its meta-dogma, i.e. a statement that the creed of this religion is true. In his article Religious Hypothesis Revised [in: P. Weingartner (ed.), Scientific and Religious Belief, Dordrecht 1994, 142-160] Bocheński writes that the concept of religion assumed in the Logic is wrong. Our experience shows that the conversion (...) of a man who previously was an unbeliever may occur in two steps: first, he accepts several elementary propositions about God. They constitute ‘basic faith’ (that God exists that He governs the events in the world, etc.). Then we have a collection of propositions that compose “the confession of faith” of a given religion. The religious hypothesis is applied, above all, when we accept a system. It is doubtful whether it can be used in the basic faith. In this paper, the author discusses first various forms of religious experience that inspires the basic faith: (1) a religious interpretation of secular phenomena; (2) an experience of sacrum in the world; (3) an ‘encounter’ of Transcendence. Then he presents a new version of this hypothesis: what kind of experience that some persons have accounts for religion and whether it permits to predict their new experiences or even new events. (shrink)

Belief is a mental state, its content being the statement of a certain state of affairs. With respect to the manner they arise, we divide beliefs into spontaneous and reflexive. When we take into consideration their bases, we speak about basic beliefs and beliefs derived from others. The terms “spontaneous belief” and “basic belief” have various meanings, but they are equivalent with regard to their range. Contemporary religious spontaneous and basic beliefs have various forms. In the Christian religion we speak, (...) among other things, about numinous beliefs, as described by R. Otto, and A. Plantinga’s properly basic beliefs. According to Otto, numinous experiences (of that which is tremendum et fascinans) are a source of firm beliefs for man, i.e. he has had contacts with some objective manifestations of divinity. Plantinga (whose thinking belongs to a more “naturalistic” strain) writes about properly basic beliefs, such that arise spontaneously in man (if he is not depraved by sinful life) who remains under respective circumstances. Such beliefs are the grounds for theistic derivative beliefs. The arguments for the truthfulness of the beliefs of the first and second type bring forth a series of questions, and they are constantly discussed by philosophers of religion. (shrink)

Stanisław Kamiński (1919-1986) was a philosopher, philosopher of science and historian of science. He defended in 1949 at the Catholic University in Lublin (KUL) his PhD thesis on Frege's axiomatic system of the sentence logic in the light of the contemporary methodology of deductive science. Since 1957 he was the head of the Chair of Methodology (the first one in Poland, founded in 1952 by J. Iwanicki) at the KUL, since 1965 the associate and since 1970 the full professor of (...) KUL. He was for many years the dean of the Faculty of Philosophy KUL where he developed the methodological foundations of the »Lublin-school of philosophy«. The main interests of S. Kamiński (1919-1986) was history of science and logic, general and special methodology, methodology of philosophy and (medieval) semiotics. Himself he saw his main achievements in the domain of the theory of science and the methodology of classical philosophy, especially in the studies of the method and language of metaphysics; he gave a methodological description of general metaphysics, philosophical anthropology, ethics, philosophy of religion, philosophy of history and studies on religion (religiology); he investigated the beginnings of the mathematical induction in the Middle Ages and in modern times, modern history of the theory of definition (Th. Hobbes, B. Pascal, J. Locke, E. B. de Condillac, J. D. Gergonne), the theory of argumentation (reasoning), the structure and the evolution of scientific theory, the deductive method (B. Pascal, G. W. Leibniz, G. Frege), the achievements of logic and philosophy in Poland. A characteristic feature of S. Kamiński's philosophical and methodological approach was a specific historicism, consisting of referring to the heritage of the past and at the same time to the latest achievements in logic and philosophy of science. He looked to history for inspiration, for how to solve his own problems and for a partial confirmation of legitimacy of his answers. He also used history to better understand the context of the discussed problems. His methodological interests are characterized by a philosophical and historical approach. He had a broad concept of knowledge and was maximalist both in raising questions and in giving answers. He cultivated the ideal of rational knowledge. In accordance with classical philosophy he saw the substance of person as ens rationale, a being realizing himself in a disinterested search for a theoretical truth, whose highest expression is philosophy. He stressed the epistemological and methodological plurality of knowledge and distinguished (with Kant) a material and formal part of knowledge, assuming that the formal element manifests itself as the logical form in the formal procedures of the (scientific) cognitive processes, that is in the (scientific) method and the (scientific) language. Making many attempts at a methodological characterization of different types of cognition and knowledge he distinguished – besides commonsense knowledge that lies at the bottom of any other type of knowledge – the scientific, philosophical and theological knowledge. None of them can be reduced to other type of knowledge, because each of them has its own problems, goals and methods. At the top there is a kind of sapiential knowledge which is much more than a simple generalization of all particular kinds of knowledge. S. Kamiński indebted his understanding of science to contemporary philosophy and to the classical philosophy. The nature of science was determined by him from the point view of its subject matter, aims, methods, logical structure and genesis. The question of what science is concerned with, i.e. what is its subject matter, is a philosophical question, it presupposes an appropriate understanding of the nature of the world. S. Kamiński opted for a pluralistic approach to the world: the principal object of science is the objective world but so are subjective states of man and products of his mind and his language. The best diagnostic test of the scientific character of science is the scientific method. Also here – rejecting the scientism (i.e. the view, that the scientific method and knowledge is the pattern and the measure of each knowledge) – S. Kamiński takes a pluralistic attitude. Accepting that the scientific method is not simple, that there is not one uncomplicated ideal way of doing science, and that because of the multiplicity of questions and scientific aims it would be difficult to construct one universal scientific method as a uniform set of rules for every kind of science, S. Kamiński assumes that different subject matter and different goals of scientific cognition require different research strategies and types of cognitive procedures. One manifestation of S. Kamiński's methodological pluralism is his antinaturalistic position in the theory of the humanities where he supported the thesis of their methodological autonomy with regard to natural sciences. Closer to the philosophical cognition and knowledge, the humanities do not meet and can not meet the conditions imposed upon the natural sciences, as they differ from them in subject matter (the world of culture) and hence in method (understanding, interpretation) used. The publications of S. Kamiński include over 350 positions. During his life he published three books: Georgonne'a teoria definicji [Georgonne's Theory of Definition], Lublin 1958; Pojęcie nauki i klasyfikacja nauk [Concept of Science and Classification of Sciences], Lublin 1961, 19813; and [together with M. A. Krąpiec] Z teorii i metodologii metafizyki [On the Theory and Methodology of Metaphysics], Lublin 1962. After his death five volumes of Collected Papers have been published: vol. I: Jak filozofować? [How to Philosophize? Studies in Methodology of Classical Philosophy], edited by Tadeusz Szubka, Lublin 1989; vol. II: Filozofia i metoda. Studia z dziejów metod filozofowania [Philosophy and Method. Studies from the History of the Method of Philosophizing], edited by Józef Herbut, Lublin 1993; vol. III: Metoda i język. Studia z semiotyki i metodologii nauk [Method and Language. Studies in Semiotics and Philosophy of Science], edited by Urszula Żegleń, Lublin 1994; vol. IV: Nauka i metoda. Pojęcie nauki i klasyfikacja nauk [Science and Method. Concept of Science and Classification of Sciences], edited by Andrzej Bronk, Lublin 1992); vol. V: Światopogląd - Religia - Teologia [Worldview - Religion - Theology], edited by Monika Walczak and Andrzej Bronk, Lublin 1998. (shrink)