[Latest paper; ref. [43]]:
S. Ishikawa: "History of Western Philosophy from the quantum theoretical point of view, [Ver. 5]"
( 2022), 442 pages ,
Reseach Report; Keio Math [KSTS/RR-22/001](download free)
The abstract of this is as follows:
Until recently I thought philosophy was a play on words.
Plato, Anselmus, Thomas, Descartes, Locke, Kant, Wittgenstein, and Hempel were all saying 'silly things', and I had no idea why these philosophers were so great. Another thing I didn't understand was the "Copenhagen Interpretation (of quantum mechanics)". I didn't understand why there was a "silly argument" like Schrodinger's cat.
However, both philosophy and quantum mechanics are disciplines created by great geniuses. Therefore, it would be the position of a wise ordinary person to believe that the two 'silliness' must be truths.
In [Ver. 5] above, this idea is taken further and the following is asserted
Philosophy's silliness and the Copenhagen Interpretation's silliness have the same root.
Descartes-Kant epistemology, quantum measurement and statistics are all types of measurement, so the Figure 1 drawn about 15 cm below is a natural result. Thus, we can come to understand philosophy (dualistic idealism) to the same degree as quantum mechanics. I believe this is therefore the deepest understanding about the history of Western philosophy.
Statistics is a theory that has been trivialized so that its silliness does not surface, and it has great usefulness, but it lacks beauty. After all, the Copenhagen interpretation is not something that is attached to quantum mechanics alone.
====================================================================================================
We have a more than 3000-year history concerning the research of worldviews. And this study has been always located at the central position of science and philosophy.
The first paradigm shift (i.e., the leap from "the animistic worldview (life dwells on things) " of the Middle Ages) is the mechanical worldview, which was owed to Galileo, Bacon, Descartes, Newton, and so on. This paradigm shift is very powerful, and hence, it opened the door from the Middle Ages to the Modern Ages (see ① in Fig.1). Here, the mechanical word view is characterized as.
(A): Study every (non-physical) science, modeled on physics.
It is simple, but, as the norm of the best description of the world, it has dominated the modern science until today.
If it be so, everyone may dream to propose the scond paradigm shift, however, it may not be easy. In fact, it is not difficult
to enumerate shattered dreams such as catastrophe theory, fuzzy theory, complex system theory, chaos theory and so on. However, It is not stopped that
we strive against instinct of liking to tell "grand narratives". That is, we cannot stop to investigate the paradigm shift.
Here we assert that the linguistic worldview in Fig. 1 due to the quantum language (=measurement theory),
which is the final stage of the linguistic series in Fig. 1, is the scond paradigm shift.
§ 2 The beginning of things: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
Our starting point is the discovery ( 20 years ago) of the mathematical formulation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (cf. ref. [1]).
This discovery urged us to investigate the following problem:
(B):
What is quantum mechanics?
Or, what is the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Quantum mechanics has various interpretations ( such as the Copenhagen interpretation, the many worlds interpretation, etc.). This fact may be negligible in applications. But it is serious for the formulation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. That is, the "errors" depend on the interpretation
(e.g.,
the wavefunction collapse is accepted or not?)
).
Thus,
we now think that we should have argued about Heisenberg's uncertainty relation under a certain firm interpretation of quantum mechanics in ref. [1].
§ 3 In the beginning was the word --- the miraculous power of language ---
Quantum mechanics was born about 90 years ago. However, we may be possessed with the surprising prejudice. That is, we may convince "Quantum mechanics is physics."
Writing the conclusion first, we say that the linguistic worldview (i.e., the in Fig. 1) is,
(C):
In the beginning there exists the language called "quantum language". And world is described and constructed by the language.
(cf. Refs.[2, 3]). Although the explanation of quantum language is omitted here,
it suffices to consider that it is composed of two spells (concerning "measurement" and "causality") and the linguistic interpretation.
What we can do in quantum language (=measurement theory) is only to trust in man's linguistic competence.
Fig 1 says that quantum language has the following three aspects:
[⑦ Fig 1]:
The ture colors of the Copenhagen interpretation. That is, the Copenhagen interpretation does not belong to physics!
(Even if "the true quantum mechanics" exists in the direction of ⑤, I believe that it is the relativistic quantum mechanics that does not need "interpretation")
[⑧ Fig 1]:
The final goal of the dualistic idealism ( Descartes=Kant philosophy)
[⑨ Fig 1]:
Theoretical statistics of the future
This language has a great power to describe ordinary phenomena as well as quantum phenomena. For example, economics is created by describing economical phenomena in quantum language.
Also,
economics is created by describing economical phenomena in quantum language.
quantum mechanics is created by describing quantum phenomena in quantum language.
psychology is created by describing psychological phenomena in quantum language.
・・・・・・・・・・・・・
(see Fig 2).
We assert that this is the true picture of quantum mechanics, and we are convinced that this is just the answer to the question (B).
Therefore, the "⑦ →" in Fig. 1 is a historical circumstance. and thus, the true direction is the "← ⑦"(where we consider the usual quantum mechanics and not the quantum physics beyond the ⑤ in Fig. 1).
That is,
(C)=[Fig.2]=(D), namely,
(D):
Thus, the linguistic worldview (C) (= in Fig. 1) asserts that
Science (more precisely, non-physical science) is to describe the world by quantum language.
Therefore,
the metaphysics called quantum language is located in the center of science.
Again note that the linguistic worldview (C) (= in Fig. 1)is due to the great human's power of linguistics.
If quantum mechanics is regarded as physics, we cannot understand the reason that there are several paradoxes and interpretations in quantum mechanics.
For example, we think that Schrödinger's cat does not live in the linguistic worldview since it can not be described by quantum mechanics.
(Recall Wittgenstein's saying: "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world"). Also, we consider that the dualism is not fit for physics.
Such idea is not only due to us but also Einstein, who never regarded quantum mechanics as physics.
§ 4 Mechanical worldview (A) vs. linguistic worldview (C)
For example, some philosophers has been studying "Achilles and the tortoise (cf. the above (D))" during about 2500 years. If you think that they are too stupid to understand the geometric series,
you are an ordinary person, i.e., the believer of the mechanical worldview (A).
That is, you do not know that the philosophers has been making efforts to discover another
worldview rather than the mechanical worldview (A) (cf. [11]).
Also, under the mechanical worldview (A), we cannot answer the question "What is statistics? or
"What is (non-physical) space-time?" That is, the quantum language is necessary
to answer these questions (cf. [7-9, 12-14]). Moreover, we cannot understand the dualistic idealism (in the main stream of the philosophy)
without the linguistic worldview (C) (cf. [4,14]).
This is the reason that there are no understandable books concerning dualistic idealism.
Since unsolved problems are easily solved under the (C), we believe that the linguistic worldview (C) is superior to the mechanical worldview(A).
Also, it should be noted that the mechanical worldview (A) has no room in Fig. 1.
Thus, it is improper to consider the mechanical worldview (A) as a kind of worldview.
Dr. Hawking said in his best seller book [A Brief History of Time: From the Big
Bang to Black Holes, Bantam, Boston, 1990]:
(E):
Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so
much that Wittgenstein the most famous philosopher
this century, said "The sole remaining task for philosophy
is the analysis of language." What a comedown
from the great tradition of philosophy from
Aristotle to Kant!
We think that this is not
only his opinion but also most scientists' opinion.
However, we do not agree to his opinion, since we know the development such as "Kant ⇒ Wittgenstein ⇒ The linguistic worldview " in Fig. 1.
§ 5 The end of grand narratives --- 3000-year final answer ---
Now we believe that the proof of "the ⑩ in Fig. 1" has been almost completed.
Therefore, the countdown of the two ends of grand narratives (⑤ and ⑩ in Fig.1) started.
In the above sense (i.e., the linguistic series acquires the linguistic worldview (C)), we dare to
declare
"the happy end of grand narratives"
However, science has already rushed into post modern time[=the ages of small narratives = the ages of sciences(i.e., engineering, social sciences,
bio, quantum computer, etc.) in (D)]. Thus, we think that science is not over.
[References]
My favorite papers are as follows:
ref.[1]:the discovery of Heisenberg's uncertainty relation
ref.[10]:solving the ergodic problem
ref.[24]:the quantum linguistic solution to Schredinger's cat
ref.[36,38]:No one could understand Wittgenstein's picture theory for 100 years and Zadeh's fuzzy logic for 50 years.
However, ref.[36, 38] now makes it easier for anyone to understand Wittgenstein's picture theory and Zadeh's fuzzy logic.
Ref.[38] is my best paper.
Wittgenstein said that
"If the 'language of science' is completed, all philosophical problems will be solved"
In fact, I can solved almost all unsolved philosophical problems in the framework of quantum language.
For the lists of my results, see pages 23 and 24 of
ref. [37]
.
Almost all my outcomes are written
in the preprints
[33, 39]
(the lecture note of the master course in Dept of Math. Keio university).
Particularly, ref. [39] was written with a policy of explaining with illustrations without using mathematical formulas so that anyone can read it.
[1]:
S. Ishikawa, "Uncertainty Relations in Simultaneous Measurements for Arbitrary Observables," Rep. Math. Phys., Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 257-273 (1991)
doi: 10.1016/0034-4877(91)90046-P, [PDF download]
[2]:
S. Ishikawa, "A New Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics," Journal of Quantum Information Science, Vol. 1 No. 2, 2011, pp. 35-42.
doi: 10.4236/jqis.2011.12005 ( download free)
S. Ishikawa, "Quantum Mechanics and the Philosophy of Language: Reconsideration of Traditional Philosophies,"
Journal of quantum information science, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2012, pp.2-9.
doi: 10.4236/jqis.2012.21002 ( download free)
S. Ishikawa, "A Measurement Theoretical Foundation of Statistics," Applied Mathematics, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2012, pp.
283-292.
doi: 10.4236/am.2012.33044
( download free)
[10]:
S. Ishikawa, "Ergodic Hypothesis and Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics in the Quantum Mechanical World View,"
World Journal of Mechanics, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2012, pp. 125-130.
doi:10.4236/wjm.2012.22014
( download free)
SS. Ishikawa, "Monty Hall Problem and the Principle of Equal Probability in Measurement Theory," Applied Mathematics
, Vol. 3, No. 7, 2012, pp. 788-794.
doi:10.4236/am.2012.37117
( download free)
S. Ishikawa: "Heisenberg uncertainty principle and quantum Zeno effects
in the linguistic interpretation of quantum mechanics,"
http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.5469[quant-ph]
,( 2013) (download free)
[16]:
S. Ishikawa: "A quantum linguistic characterization of the reverse relation between confidence interval and hypothesis testing,"
http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.2709[math.ST]
,( 2014) (download free)
S. Ishikawa: "The double-slit quantum eraser experiments and Hardy's paradox in the quantum linguistic interpretation,"
http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.5143[quantum-ph]
,( 2014) (download free)
[21]:
S. Ishikawa: "The Final Solutions of Monty Hall Problem and Three Prisoners Problem,"
arXiv:1408.0963v1 [stat.OT]
,( 2014) (download free)
[22]:
S. Ishikawa: "The two envelopes paradox in non-Bayesian and Bayesian statistics,"
arXiv:1408.4916v4 [stat.OT]
,( 2014) (download free)
S. Ishikawa: "Wittgenstein's picture thwory in the linguistic Copenhagen interpretation of dualistic idealism
https://philpapers.org/rec/SHIWPT
( 2021), 26 pages (download free)