Linguistic Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum language (言語的コペンハーゲン解釈; 量子言語 (=QL))  

[⇨ Japanese]

Notice: 2024/12/25: [HWP] has been renewed (i.e., [Ver6] from [Ver5])

Quantum language is the language of the world of dualistic idealism
[I]: The whole picture of Quantum Language (=QL=measurement theory) is explained in detail in the following two:

[LCI]:

Linguistic Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics: Quantum Language [Ver. 7] (2024) [https://philarchive.org/rec/ISHLCI-4]

The main point is the derivation of statistics and quantum mechanics (with the Copenhagen interpretation) from QL (Chaps. 5,6 in [LCI]).

[HWP]:

History of Western Philosophy from the quantum theoretical point of view; [Ver.6] [https://philarchive.org/rec/ISHHOW-4](2024)

The main point is the derivation of fuzzy logic (= practical logic) from QL (Chap. 12 in [HWP]).

Therefore,

• Statistics, practical logic (= fuzzy logic), and quantum mechanics (Copenhagen interpretation) can be derived from QL

Illustrated, it looks like this:
Figure 0: [classical QL(=everyday science)] $\supset$ [fuzzy logic] $\cup$[statistics]
However, this homepage is written so that it can be read without knowing [HWP] and [LCI].
======================================================
[II : Latest Results; The perfection of Socrates' absolutism.]:
This homepage will introduces the following latest paper:

[SOC]:

History of Western Philosophy and QL (2024) [J. applied math. and Physics (Pdf download free)]

I chose this because I want the claim of [SOC] (i.e., the completion of Socrates' absolutism) to become common knowledge in general. Also, I think that every university student is able to read it regardless of their field of study.
Below is the Abstract: What did they want to achieve?     Were they just having fun with fashion?

• [Abstract]: The purpose of philosophy is diverse, but many philosophers acknowledge that the mainstream of Western philosophy (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Wittgenstein) has progressed towards the completion of Socrates' absolutism. However, can absolutism still maintain its central position after analytical philosophy? There are pessimistic views on this issue, like that of R. Rorty, a leading figure of neo-pragmatism. Recently, I have proposed quantum language (including quantum mechanics, statistics, fuzzy sets, etc.). I believe this theory is not only one of the most fundamental scientific theories but also the scientific ultimate endpoint of Western philosophy. If so, Socrates' dream has come true. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the above and convey to the reader that quantum language has the power to cause a paradigm shift from a classical mechanical worldview to a quantum mechanical worldview.
  (I was a little disappointed to learn that some people misunderstand my assertion above as one result of the "philosophy of physics". As the diagram above [Socrates → Plato → .....→ Wittgenstein] shows that my research is in the mainstream of Western philosophy and is a challenge to the biggest unsolved problem in philosophy. On this website, I try to avoid the above misinterpretations, but it may not be enough. Again, from the theoretical point of view, I consider QL to be the backbone of Western philosophy.)

Now, it is no exaggeration to say that the following [Figure 1: Diagram of two scientific world descriptions] is all I have to say. The argument for this diagram is as follows.

(A0)

There are two types of scientific thinking (monistic realism and dualistic idealism). I am not familiar with the former (e.g. TOE) because it is difficult to understand, but I consider as 'Newtonian mechanistic thinking' for the moment. But we are interested in the latter, everyday (non-physical) scientific thinking, which is a quantum language Ⓛ evolved from statistics Ⓖ or fuzzy logic Ⓚ. We therefore use 'scientific' here in the latter sense (sometimes also 'QL-like' to avoid confusion, e.g. 'QL-like' is used to mean 'scientific').

Figure 1: The locaction QL in the History of Western Philosophy
(the green road =the main stream of western philosophy history )
======================================================
======================================================
[III:Let's Get to the Main Topic; This is not the 'end of philosophy' but the 'completion of philosophy']:
First of all, let us state that our position is to focus only on scientific matters in the history of Western philosophy, ignoring all ethics, morality, faith, and so on. If there were highly intelligent aliens, they would also have mathematics, physics, and philosophy. I think it is too optimistic to assume that ethics, morality, faith, etc. are common. However, the“scientific part” of philosophy must be common to all aliens. In short, among the elements of philosophy (truth, goodness, and beauty), our interest is focused only on “truth.”
Therefore, my intention is easy to understand if you think as follows. (in Figure 1) $$ \overset{\mbox{Kant Ⓘ}}{\fbox{Critique of Pure Reason}} \xrightarrow[]{⑫} \overset{\mbox{Wittgenstein Ⓚ}}{\fbox{Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus}} \xrightarrow[]{⑭ ⑮} \overset{\mbox{QL Ⓛ}}{\underset{\mbox{(complete form)}}{\fbox{[LCI], [HWP]}}} \tag*{(1)$\qquad　\qquad　\qquad$} $$

We adopt the general convention of considering Socrates as the founder of philosophy. Therefore, we have:

Socrates (absolutism: pursuit of truth) vs. Protagoras (relativism: mastering rhetoric)

In ancient Athens, it was customary for citizens to gather in the agora, a public square, to freely debate. So how did one "win an argument"?

• Protagoras, the relativist, responded to this question by saying "improve your rhetoric skills"
• Socrates, the absolutist, said "speak the truth" (or, "Make the correct expression.")

. If I were in the agora, I would probably agree with Protagoras, but that's not where philosophy begins. So Socrates' disciples pursued the question, "What is absolute truth?" This pursuit has continued through Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, and Wittgenstein, and has formed the mainstream of Western philosophical history. However, despite being pursued by the most brilliant geniuses of every era for the past 2,500 years, no clear answer has yet been found. That's why some people, like Rorty (the flag bearer of neo-pragmatism), say, "Let's give up on the pursuit of truth here." If Rorty says something like that, I would think that Rorty's opinion may be correct, but still, the stubborn pursuit of true
If so, I think everyone would agree with the following:

(A1)	The most important problem in Western philosophy is the completion of Socratic absolutism, i.e., the final settlement of the mainstream (Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Anselmus, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Wittgenstein)

And the answer of this paper is as follows.

(A2)	Next for Wittgenstein is QL, which is the perfection of Socratic absolutism.

Some readers might be thinking:

• Why are there no names like Spinoza, Hegel, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre etc?

The reason is simple: their achievements are not scientific (=QL). That does not mean that they are philosophically inferior to QL philosophers. However, the spirit that permeates the mainstream of Western philosophy is "scientific." That is,
Quantum language is a fundamental theory in the philosophy of science.
======================================================
======================================================

[IV:The explanation of the answer (A₂)]:

Quantum language (=QL) is a mathematical extension of quantum mechanics (=QM), so it has the following form similar to quantum mechanics: $$ \fbox{Quantum language}= \overset{\mbox{Axiom 1}}{\fbox{measurement}}+ \overset{\mbox{Axiom 2}}{\fbox{causality}} + \fbox{linguistic Copenhagen interpretation} \tag*{(2)$\qquad　\qquad　\qquad$} $$ The reader may naturally request that "[Axioms 1 and 2] be clearly stated here," but since this is at the graduate school level, I will omit this.
Axiom 1 is an axiom about measurement, and Axiom 2 is an axiom about motion (equation of motion). However, since QL is a mathematical extension of quantum mechanics, it is no longer physics, and Axioms 1 and 2 become something like incomprehensible spells. 　Therefore, quantum mechanics is physics (realism), but QL is idealism. 　As shown in the diagram below, measurement is a concept consisting of three parts: the measurer (measured value), the measuring device (observable), and the measured thing (state). However, following convention, it is called dualism (rather than trinism). In summary, quantum language is dualistic idealism, and the mainstream of Western philosophy is also dualistic idealism. In other words, the two can be discussed within the following Cartesian diagram.

[Axioms 1 and 2] are spells, and we don't know how to use them. Therefore, we need a manual on how to use [Axioms 1 and 2]. This manual is the linguistic Copenhagen interpretation. Therefore,

(B1)	The linguistic Copenhagen Interpretation is a manual on how to use [Axioms 1 and 2]

The word "manual" means that you can learn how to use [Axioms 1 and 2] by trial and error without looking at a manual, and Dr. Mermin's famous "Shut up and calculate!" can be considered a similar definition to (B₁). Or rather, I would like to consider the following definition of (B₂) to be the true one.
However, there is another way of thinking about this. This is when you do not know [Axioms 1 and 2]. 　In this case, it is as follows.

(B2)	The linguistic Copenhagen interpretation is common sense in the world of dualistic idealism.

(To be more specific, it is a memo that records things that are obvious in the world of dualistic idealism, but not obvious to our normal senses.)
(From here, I consider that "linguistic Copenhagen interpretation"="Copenhagen interpretation" since I believe that the linguistic Copenhagen interpretation is the true Copenhagen interpretation.)

The author's preference is definition (B₂) and does not wish to adopt definition (B₁) if possible. Our Copenhagen interpretation is specifically enumerated as follows [footnote^[1]]

(c₁)Always think with the Cartesian Figure 2 in mind.

(c₂)Measure only once.

(c₃)Measurers have no space-time.

(c₄)State does not change (There is no movement)

(c₅)... (Maybe endless)

etc. Also, I think as follows.

• The Copenhagen Interpretation is attached to quantum language, not to quantum mechanics.　 However, when quantum mechanics is viewed as [quantum mechanics $\subset$ quantum language], the Copenhagen interpretation appears to be attached to quantum mechanics. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics does not consider [quantum mechanics $\subset$ quantum language], so it is not associated with the Copenhagen interpretation.

Many readers may think, "I can understand definition (B₁), but definition (B₂) is impossible." However, what is surprising is that most of the Copenhagen Interpretation was discovered before the birth of quantum mechanics. In fact, things like 2, ..., 4 above were discovered by Parmenides (c. 520 BC - 450 BC), who was 50 years older than Socrates. However, Parmenides was too much of a genius, and it is probably the consensus among philosophy lovers that the position of the father of philosophy should belong to Socrates. Even so, Parmenides had a clear vision of the world of dualistic idealism and discovered the Copenhagen Interpretation. Moreover, he discovered it under definition (B2) (without assuming Axioms 1 and 2), which means he was nothing short of a genius. The field of Western philosophical history is full of geniuses, but Parmenides (as well as Thomas Aquinas and Descartes) is surprising. Thus we see:

(D)	The mainstream of Western philosophy has pursued the question, "What is the world of dualistic idealism (the world in which "things" and "mind" are intertwined)?" In other words, the Copenhagen Interpretation has been sought.

That the search for the Copenhagen interpretation runs through the mainstream of Western philosophy [Plato, Augustine, Anselmus, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, (excluding Aristotle and Wittgenstein)] is evident in the following table.

But the story is not simple. The problem is the [logic] part of analytic philosophy (Wittgenstein). Anyone looking at [Figure 3] would think that

(E1)	Isn't "analytical philosophy" unique and out of touch with the mainstream of Western philosophy?

とか

(E2)	Descartes-Kant's epistemology is meaningless because it is metaphysics. True philosophy begins with analytic philosophy!

etc. It is natural that a variety of opinions erupt. Figure 1 is shown again:
Figure 1: The locaction QL in the History of Western Philosophy

Now, as we saw above, everyone would think that

(E3)	"�K: linguistic turn" is unreasonable (i.e., Ⓘ and Ⓚ not connected)

Wittgenstein discarded (Descartes-Kant) epistemology as metaphysics and established analytical philosophy. Wittgenstein's brilliant eloquence led philosophy lovers to believe in the linguistic turn: Ⓘ → Ⓚ, and this has continued for 100 years.
If you think about it normally, even if "logic" is the foundation of mathematics and is important, philosophy does not go out of its way to emphasize the "importance of logic." If mathematicians or physicists emphasize the "importance of logic," it would be somewhat understandable, but they do not go out of their way to say such obvious things. To begin with, his TLP (= Tractatus Logico-philosophicus) is not written logically, and Wittgenstein is not a philosopher who thinks logically.

About 10 years ago, I thought the following:

(E4)

Analytical philosophy is a philosophy that the magician Wittgenstein created in the midst of the scientific revolution (abstract mathematics, quantum mechanics, and relativity) in the early 20th century in order to break the "Epistemological rut." He was blinded by the surprising fact that logic is the language of (abstract) mathematics and jumped on "logic," but it is doubtful that "logic" is the main theme of philosophy. It has nothing to do with Socratic absolutism.

======================================================
======================================================
[V: The most important issue in the history of Western philosophy is the relationship between Kant Ⓘ and Wittgenstein Ⓚ]:


About 10 years ago, my opinion was (E₄), but now I think as follows.

(F)	Wittgenstein was wrong to discard "epistemology". However, Wittgenstein's choice of "logical" is quite commendable. Maybe 50 points. But to get 100 points, he should have chosen "scientific".

Let me show this below.
We must free ourselves from the spell of Wittgenstein and look squarely at the absolute truth of Socrates. In other words, we must look at it from the perspective of QL. Then, by expanding the essential part of Figure 1, we obtain the following:

The following has the same meaning as Figure 4:

Hence we see：

(G1)	QM(�G),statistcs(�H) and fuzzy logic(�M) are derived from QL. Therefore, these are connected These are also connected to the underlying Copenhagen interpretation ($\approx$ Descartes=Kant epistemology)

Therefore, quantum theory, statistics, and analytical philosophy (fuzzy logic) can all be deduced from LQ (= [AXioms 1 and 2] + Copenhagen interpretation).
Therefore,

(G2)	Wittgenstein was not wrong to emphasise the importance of being 'logical'. But he really should have emphasised the importance of 'scientific (i.e. QL)'. It was also a big mistake to abandon 'Cartesian-Kantian epistemology'.

That is,

(H)	Like anything, you can't see the whole picture until you see it from the top of the mountain.

Just to be clear, analytical philosophy Ⓚ has no relation to mathematical logic Ⓙ, just as physics Ⓕ has no relation to mathematical logic Ⓙ. Research that considers the results of mathematical logic, such as Gödel's incompleteness theorem, from a philosophical perspective may be important, but this has nothing to do with what Wittgenstein aimed for.

======================================================
======================================================
[VI: Conclution]　:
The above showed that.

(A2)	QL is the perfection of Socratic absolutism (i.e., dualistic idealism)

　(I think this is the most important claim in philosophy. If it were not so, we would not be able to answer the question, "What was the mainstream of the history of Western philosophy?" In other words, we would not know what the great philosophers depicted below were trying to do.) We were not doing philosophy as fashion. We were running a relay race aiming for the QL (= goal).
Now we can finally say "what Wittgenstein wanted to say". [footnote^[3]]
However, we all already know this, and it boils down to this:

(I)	What we cannot speak about in QL, we must pass over in silence.

(I')	When discussing things that cannot be quantified, use logic, and when things can be quantified, use statistics.

Look at Figure 0: [classical QL(=everyday science)] $\supset$ [logic] $\cup$[statistics] again.
Even so, I believe that it is largely due to Wittgenstein that the importance of logic has become so deeply ingrained in our lives today. ======================================================
[VII:Supplement]:
(i): In the first year of university, regardless of whether you are a liberal arts or science student, there are lectures on mathematics, physics, and statistics. This means that these three are the "most important basic theories" and correspond to the following three.

$\qquad \qquad \qquad$(Abbreviation for Figure 1)
Mathematics and QL have reached their destination, and now we are in the details. However, the TOE of physics is still unknown. I think that human wisdom must solve these three problems. Physicists need to hurry, otherwise AI will do it first!

(ii): In mathematics, there are methods such as category theory that are different from set theory. Therefore, it would be interesting if there was something in dualistic idealism that was different from QL. Another question I've been wondering about is, "Is there a fourth fundamental theory?" (i.e., The only truths common to all aliens are Math. TOE, and QL? ). I believe there isn't, but I'm not confident.
======================================================
[VIII:Supplement]:
I also wanted to attach the following diagram, which says that both statistics and Wittgenstein's logic and quantum mechanics (with the Copenhagen mechanics) are theories within QL (i.e., dualistic idealism).

The descriptive power of QL is immeasurable.
But poem, God, theory of relativity and etc. are cannot described in QL. For the theory of everyday science, see [footnote^[4]]
If Wittgenstein had mistakenly thought he had discovered a language like QL, he would have said:

• The limits of my language mean the limits of my world

======================================================
======================================================
======================================================
[footnote]