re-construction of reality
TRANSCRIPT
1
RE-CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY
VIVIANA YACCUZZI POLISENA Professor of Philosophy
Master in Philosophy of Science [email protected]
GUSTAVO ADOLFO AUCAR Doctor in Physics
Posdoc in Quantum Chemistry
National Scientific and Technical Research Council
Head of the Institute for Modeling and Innovative Technology / IMIT Argentina
Universidad Nacional del Nordeste (UNNE)
http://www.unne.edu.ar/
Institute for Modeling and Innovative Technology / IMIT Argentina
http://www.imit-conicet.gob.ar International Research Group: Culture, History and the State/GIRCHE Barcelona.
http://girchenews.blogspot.com.br/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Translation to English by Francesc Beltran
Published in spanish at Barcelona: 01 / 02 / 2013
Revista Digital de Humanidades. Revista Digital de Humanidades Sàrasuati 2.1 con ISSN 1989-
564X. Licencia CC 3.0
http://www.sarasuati.com/
http://www.sarasuati.com/re-construccion-de-la-realidad/
Published in spanish and in english at Italie: 28 / 02 / 2013.
Rosebud – Critica, scrittura, giornalismo online. Il sito della scrittura online, creato il 27 Marzo
2010 – Anno III. Italia.
http://rinabrundu.com/
http://rinabrundu.com/2013/02/28/philosophy-and-quantum-mechanics-re-construction-of-reality-
re-construccion-de-la-realidad/
Published in spanish en Uruguay, 23 / 09 / 2013.
En Red Filosófica Del Uruguay.
http://redfilosoficadeluruguay.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/reconstruccion-de-la-realidad/
Published in inglish at France. 25/01/2015.
Apeiron Centre.
http://apeironcentre.org/
http://apeironcentre.org/reflections
http://apeironcentre.org/reflections/re-construction-of-reality-720#.VMVpwCwYGjY
2
ABSTRACT
We present a program under development, an unfinished building, to build a new rationality, and
modernize thought. We are trying to do something completely new which places us outside the
Standard patterns: transform categories-mechanisms, expand concepts-symbols, and create generic
abstractions with the intention to seek the intelligibility of the natural world. Given the collapse of
cultural-intellectual-morality of our society, the philosophy of the 21st century must contribute to
the formation of new principles and formalisms: the great task of the contemporary philosophy is to
create to transform the world! The accumulated knowledge has reached a point where this legacy
became ineffective. The way of thinking and the way of building life are showing signs of
exhaustion in all areas, due to their individualistic and selfish characteristics. This legacy does not
allow us to develop a new understanding of nature; it also does not allow us to reconstruct the social
fabric. The ideas which we propose in this article require a profound cultural-scientific-
philosophical-epistemological rethinking, ranging from the quantum entities level to life in society.
key words: Quantum entities. Expand concepts-symbols. New formalisms. Contemporary
philosophy. Smart particles.
I
We present a program under development, an unfinished building, to build a new rationality, and
modernize thought. We are trying to do something completely new which places us outside the
Standard patterns: transform categories-mechanisms, expand concepts-symbols, and create generic
abstractions with the intention to seek the intelligibility of the natural world. Building this new way
of thinking can lead to a new way to found knowledge; this would give an understanding of the
world beyond calculation and foreshadowing. Although there was a great scientific progress in
recent years, important anomalies reveal severe limitations in the Standard paradigm and this is due
to paradigm not seeing the universe functioning as a result of chance and interactions. This scenario
requires new models, new formalisms, new categories that resolve key fundamental-transcendental
3
issues; a new program is needed that models the patterns, with symbols, complex objects,
technological objects, molecular-cellular existential questions: The result of this modeling will have
semantic value, cultural-social-virtual-vectorial-human. Given the collapse of cultural-intellectual-
morality of our society, the philosophy of the 21st century must contribute to the formation of new
principles and formalisms: the great task of the contemporary philosophy is to create to transform
the world! The accumulated knowledge has reached a point where this legacy became ineffective.
The way of thinking and the way of building life are showing signs of exhaustion in all areas, due to
their individualistic and selfish characteristics. This legacy does not allow us to develop a new
understanding of nature, it also does not allow us to reconstruct the social fabric. The ideas which
we propose in this article require a profound cultural-scientific-philosophical-epistemological
rethinking, ranging from the quantum entities level to life in society. Re-building twenty-first
century reality embodies a radical innovation. We tried a rapprochement between philosophy (PH)
and quantum physics (Q) in order to build more general categories which modify the relationship
between philosophy and science (SC); a PH inspired by Q to reach the notion that ‘quantum (Q) is
the paradigm of contemporary (SC)’ (Bernard D'Espagnat). We propose to move and relocate
certain issues about Q (quantum entanglement, non-distinguishability, non-separation capability) to
the field of PH so that both build generic abstractions. This task can have a direct and profound
effect on the way of thinking, of building knowledge and individual-social human behavior.
This requires redefining and expanding the status of certain concepts-categories:
(i)'Intelligence', understood as shared intelligence has existential overtones. 'Intelligence' is not a
uniquely human quality, it has varying degrees of intelligence and it would have the ubiquity
attribute. Understanding the idea of a 'ubiquitous intelligence' (intellegentia ubïque) binding energy
and matter allows to redefine life: that is to transform individual competition into cooperation based
on trust to share the most purely personal: thoughts, emotions, feelings, beliefs. As a ‘synchronicity’
of wills and responsibilities, a 'collective intelligence' greater than 'intelligence of each of the parts'.
This implies a great intellectual and spiritual effort: a collective need which
4
benefit would create an opportunity for the advent of a new rationality, a human overcoming the
category of 'homo'. This transformation is not by chance but by choice, which is why it’s a job that
involves commitment; (ii) 'disciplinary' 'interdisciplinary', it is necessary to expand these
mechanistic expressions and move beyond the fragmentation-multiplicities to build a more
democratic dialogue between SC-PH. The 'discipline' and 'interdisciplinary' concepts are 'classical
voices' that could not end the domination of one discipline over another. Interdisciplinary has
become another discipline, which is why is has not been able to integrate-relate-connect ideas nor
problems, it also could not end the figure of the scientist as the sole creator of knowledge. Which is
generic puts an end to interdisciplinary effort and amplifies the disciplinary work.
To modernize means thinking out of the classical notions and build generic formalisms that
emerge as ‘family branches’ and include notions Q-PH. The current formalism of PH is that which
emerges from the first philosophers? Is it the only or is there a possibility of developing them from
other axioms? This would bring enormous consequences! Quantum systems function as a whole,
the extent of its parts affects the whole: there is non-separation of system elements. Quantum
systems have the characteristic of unity-identity, i.e. the Q cannot be described under the glass of
realism or of strict causality. The interpretations of quantum physics might be inadequate, because
they are classic ways of trying to understand phenomena that are not classical? Our proposal is to
address quantum phenomena from a non-classical field, that is, leave the deterministic classical
thought that has 'encapsulated the cogito'. And pass on to our descendants how to produce the
break. That is, to teach the next generation to develop a 'cogito complexus' so they can articulate
knowledge and imagination; understanding and developing the ability to share thoughts, feelings,
attitudes and responsibilities. This leads us to rethink existence intertwining life, energy, matter and
intelligence non-locality: it is a new way of thinking about human evolution. Is it the 'quantum leap
of Being'? Towards a more sensitive-compassionate humanity with collective elections-
responsibilities, oriented towards a time of unity and identity of 'feelings'. We need to abandon the
mechanical structure which imposes us to progress at all costs and prepare for a revolution to start
5
at the molecular level so that it spreads to the individual life-collective, cultural-social. Thus, this
way the PH may contribute to an ethic that addresses the commodification of the SC and the
urgency to sell ideas, which is detrimental to the creative human progress itself.
II
Dehumanized behavior of man is the result of a vicious competition to transmit a pattern that rules
it: greed, selfishness and individualism. This pattern dragged us to the economy crisis, political,
moral, social; we are the height of insensitivity. 21st century man must break this vicious pattern,
creating a more humane way of thinking that would respond to contemporary problems with new
strategies. It is no longer possible to use mechanistic strategies to solve problems of a completely
different nature. One of Einstein’s most lucid thoughts refers to "only a mind which is different
from that one which has created our problems can solve them." What is the responsibility of the
philosopher? (Noam Chomsky). We propose to develop a different way of constructing knowledge
with 'the generic' (François Laruelle), as flexible-inclusive category to end the classic resources that
slow thinking: reduction, fragmentation, dualisms. The mechanistic paradigm has grown in excess
of formulas and concepts, this is a way that is repeated, however the generic is a category that does
not repeat. The generic strategy eliminates the ethical conflict, the interdisciplinary promises and
experimentation as the only resource to find the truth. Truth is no longer sought but is also lived.
Neither the different ethical-philosophical systems, neither interdisciplinary nor scientific
experimentation can create a different way of thinking. What is the contribution of the philosopher
at a time of global crisis? Ethical-philosophical systems cannot end the furor over war or violence
of man against man; interdisciplinary thinking is a strategy of the classic paradigm that produces
interpretations with recurring debates leaving unanswered passages, which has slowed the creation
of new ideas; scientific experimentation has enthroned calculation and prediction leaving outside
imagination and intuition. All this does not develop a better understanding of the world. Our
proposal is not to accept the usual as natural and genuinely contribute to a change of man that is
6
meaningful to humanity, this is the great compromise: 'humanize the inside to create an outside
which is freer and fair'. It is the compromise of a philosophy which creates human knowledge.
Move and relocate the Q issues to the PH towards a revolution within the core of thought that
spreads towards a deep social change by generating a collective sensibility. It is the passage of
'homo sapiens sapiens' saturated with deterministic knowledge, materialistic, linear and fragmented
into a 'wise man' that feels, lives and respects life with wisdom. It is interesting to realize that the
subatomic particles could give us their properties, since human are 'matter-energy' (both made of
subatomic particles). But it is also interesting to realize that humans could move one of their
fundamental properties to subatomic particles: 'intelligence'. Then we have that 'matter-energy' are
manifestations ordered by one of the greatest attributes of life, 'intelligence'.
III
The problems of the contemporary age are not solved with anything already known: they are brand
new, they relate with interactive processes, that’s why they produce a breakthrough in our thinking.
Understanding these processes requires the incorporation of strategies never before handled by
thought. Man needs a new level of abstraction to re-create reality and re-raise the dynamics of
building his cogito. A cogito that can link the different dimensions of reality and give birth to ideas
and collective attitudes for the first time in the history of mankind. It is a radical innovation of the
cogito that frees us from the classical doctrine of growth at any price no matter the human cost
(mechanistic-classical paradigm). It is a cogito that weaves information in a shared dialogical
frequency, from it come out multiple possible interactions from generic facts. This platform builds
knowledge introducing the virtual as a creative element (Anne-Françoise Schmid). Is it possible to
philosophize including the virtual? Contemporary philosophy is radically different, is far away from
repetition and creates with the same tools of science: modeling and virtual. Creating and shaping the
"scientific-philosophical objects' from the non-separation of knowledge. They are 'generic objects'
that can be modeled and represented by larger and more dynamic formalisms.
7
The new cogito to describe and understand the workings of entangled particles because its
structure is built on foundations which are quantum laws, it is a 'cogito' with new computational
skills including a new skill: the ability to 'co-feel', that is to share feelings. This new skill creates a
new intellectual and spiritual way of thinking about the matter-energy bond-intelligence. We are
talking about a style achieved through a collective effort of abstraction that leads to link 'feelings'
personal.
Entangled particles cannot appear as individual particles with well-defined states but rather as
a system. This system behaves as a whole and for its status measurement affects the whole. This
interaction does not decrease with distance. In the entanglement there is simultaneity and
instantaneity. Quantum entanglement is one of the most unusual that the Q provides to the
description of the dynamics of the relationship between two entities. There is no equivalent
interaction in classical physics. Is there a PH for understanding the odds? The PH of the century can
describe the phenomena in terms of │ Ψ │ ² and understand a world where laws are not only
Newtonian and where intelligence is located right on the interaction; it can understand that 'reality'
consists of particles that behave like waves. Does the contemporary PH give the conditions so that
the Q can model the collapse of the wave function? This 'reality' is constructed through interaction
between the particles and the same human cogito, which is re-built in this interaction: a new model.
There is a mutual enrichment, this idea changed the way we perceive life, the way we connect with
each other. The key is to understand the importance of intelligence in the new model! The particles
are not elemental by themselves, they become elementary through interaction. The particles
interact, themselves forming complex systems and their behavior becomes collective. Collective
behavior is qualitatively different from individual behavior: the whole is not the sum of its parts.
Intelligence is in the interaction and organization of the particles. This model includes intelligence.
Interaction + quantity = new intelligent organized behavior (principle of self-organization).
Intelligence is in the interaction, the wave function of the entire system! Then, if the
interaction becomes elementary particles and particle interaction organized in more complex
8
systems transforming their behavior: the interaction gives some intelligent pattern particles. The
particles are not in a vegetative state (classical paradigm), but they are active, they are with man,
co-creators of reality. This is why we talk about 'intelligence sharing'.
The idea of 'shared intelligence' has an impact on human relationships. We are at the dawn of
a humanity that not only observes the universe, but lives it. The stage of life is radically transformed
because it’s human rationality which changes. Our age needs urgent new parameters in the
construction of thought, knowledge and attitudes; our age needs the advent of a spiritual rational
and sensitive humanity. We need to change our anthropocentric model of intelligence. Intelligence
is not unique to man but is divided into different levels in the universe. The 'ubiquitous intelligence'
is a wave function that organizes the quantum states: the higher interaction, the more complex it
becomes.
Particles are in electrical charges in the cells as well. The cells carry the genetic code, the
code is an 'intelligent pattern' that humans share with the world leading to a 'generic code'. Life is a
phenomenon of interaction codes. Life understood in this way leads to the development of a
'complex-collective cogito' which overcomes the anthropocentrism. A collective thinking creates
conditions of possibility of co-existence and shared responsibilities.
IV
To break with the mechanistic fidelity and intellectual narrowness classical to avoid repeating the
patterns of thought and behavior of our ancestors, we propose not to transfer to the next generation
our current thinking and knowledge construction. The generational cultural transfer of thought-
disciplinary split-individualist violent behavior is what is destroying humanity. The slave left the
cave to observe the 'true classic' and become open-minded man. Now unprejudiced man must leave
the 'sensible world' and enter a 'virtual world' to think, create 'generic truths'.
Moving towards quantum categories 'philosophical objects' will allow us to give the means
and conditions to re-construct knowledge, to bring forth the SC PH and transforming them into a
9
contemporary space that is neither one nor the other, but generic. We propose the transfer and
posting of the following:
1) First movement: move the principle of non-separation of quantum entities
│ Ψ (x ₁ x ₂) │ ² = │ Ψ (X ₂ x ₁) │ ² to the idea of indiscernibility universe / human: quantum
entities after the interaction are intertwined, and they transmit their structure instantly.
Quantum non-separation may also explain the idea of indiscernibility between universe /
human. The physical property underlying the entanglement is non-separation. The system state at
any instant is described by a vector because it represents the space where the system is a vector.
That space is a space of wave functions and contains all the information the system at that time.
Therefore it is not possible to factor the probability distribution of random variables as two separate
distributions product:
Px₁,x₂ (X₁,X₂) ≠ Px₁ (X₁) Px₂ (X₂)
I.e. for any state of two particles that are expressed as a superposition, the probability distributions
are dependent:
Ψ (X₁, X₂) ≠ Ψ₁ (X₁) Ψ₂ (X₂) → P (X₁, X₂) ≠ P₁ (X₁) P₂ (X₂)
Not that the observer's consciousness interfere with the behavior of particles. The act of
measurement is not a problem, as viewed from the classic position. The problem of the measure
might not be a quantum postulate, but derived from other postulates. Can the PH solve the quantum
measurement problem?
The universe and humans 'link' information, intelligence and genetic code. In the 'link' the
genetic code becomes generic code: hence the indiscernibility. The act of measurement shows that
the man and the universe are 'indistinguishable'. In a system of entangled particles, their probability
distributions are linked to each other and share qualitative properties, those properties are intrinsic
to the entity, i.e. are generic properties. The states of two or more entangled particles, whose
properties are generic cannot be described separately any more, it is a non-local relationship: a
10
single wave function that represents the entire system. We could think that between humans the
same thing happens. After the interaction of two people a dimension of 'us', a field of shared
feelings that takes humans outside the entrapment of “me”.
The particles that form a system all have the same features, they are considered: identical or
indistinguishable. The concept is to shift the wave function obtained when two particles interact, it
must represent the same state as the original wave function: the principle of non-distinguishability.
This principle applied to society does not involve loss of individuality or personality. If the particles
can be bound linking the structure of behavior, individuals can associate to form a harmonized
humanity: a collective individuality.
2) Second movement: move the phenomenon of quantum entanglement to the concept of 'co-
existence'. Show that entangled particles are not isolated entities. Human beings are not isolated and
we can develop the 'sense of collaboration', i.e. place ourselves in the place of others but with the
thinking of others and feeling the same as the other. This leads us to build shared mental models.
Goes beyond empathy, means to live and feel the emotion of another. A'link connection' is
achieved, it is the guarantee that human existence can share just a social organization in perpetual
peace. Quantum entanglement cannot be well understood with binary logic, when there are multiple
entangled particles the sensitivity of the system increases significantly. The same can happen in the
social system. So every human that interacts with another human, will never be the same again after
that. Any action that a human causes to another will be felt by other humans that have interacted
with him, i.e. the action immediately and directly affects the human who performed the action. It is
a 'moral generic collaboration'. For thousands of years, man was a thief of man: man expropriated
land, water, goods and ideas of other men. The contemporary human need to conquer this new
moral urgency it will end up being thought of man thief attacking itself.
3) Third movement: move the phenomenon of collective action of entangled particles to the concept
of 'co-intelligence'. Entangled particles have a collective behavior, the human moral 'generic
collaborative "meeting develop a life shared. This allows the advent of humanity with a high level
11
of understanding and commitment. Through this last trip we raise the idea of 'smart particles',
expanding the concept of intelligence (Armand Hatchuel / Teoria CK). If we apply the idea of
'generic' to neurons and objects, we get 'generic neurons' and 'generic objects', then if the neurons
are formed by particles and objects are composed of particles, the concept of 'particles' and the
concept of 'intelligence' are unchanged. Increase the potential 'particles' with the generic attribute of
'intelligence': so we can speak of 'generic photons', 'generic neurons'. In granting the generic
attribute to particles, we have generic particles and if they are generic we can claim to have the
attribute of 'certain intelligence'. Our proposal of 'smart particles' produces synergies that allow us
to understand the idea of why and how "everything is connected to everything.' That is, humans (as
quantum particles) are bonded in the interaction. In the interaction, the particles report of the chance
to be found in a region of space by the square of its wave function and the human informs his
actions by his 'cogito', this leads to a single wave function of the entire system: wave function that
has "some intelligence". The particles by interacting with humans they incorporate 'some
intelligence'! The energy and information spread like intelligence. Our intelligent interactive model
modifies the intelligence status and it includes it. Like photons, intelligence is everywhere. The
particles-the human-the universe vibrate under the same wave function: the same pattern tuning.
Intelligence is the unifying field of fields. This cannot be explained by the development of
traditional science, she has confined the intelligence in the human brain.
Our proposal is only possible and understandable from a new paradigm since inside the
exhausted the classical model (scientific model) it is not possible. Our proposal also addresses the
issue of a model that divides the human universe. The infinitely small is grouped to form the
infinitely large; both levels are integrated and interact to give existence which fundamental wave
function is a "generic code of intelligence 'that connects man with the universe. Intelligence
fluctuates through the universe and defines matter. Humans must realize that intelligence
fluctuations define it and connect it with other humans. Intelligence has no description nor place in
the classical model, but if it does in the intelligent interactive model we propose. In our model,
12
intelligence is the fundamental attribute of the universe and not an exclusive property of man. The
wave function of the whole system develops in the universe different scales and these scales create
our 'reality'. Particles to interact with humans are 'true intelligence' of the universe. The man tells
the world about their particular view of events, and creates the 'reality', but the information back to
us, the "reality" also creates us, i.e. defines the existence of intelligence. That is why we speak of a
'shared reality' and we can talk of 'co-existence'. Due to interaction each human is responsible from
the thought that comes from the universe, this way, humans participate in the creation. This is our
responsibility; it is here that we begin to feel our connection to the whole.
V
Daily life should be viewed as a field in which no action is required on each individual but
collectively to generate a coherent functioning society. This gives a whole new perspective of life in
society by providing internal consistency to each individual which in turn benefits and improves
community life. It is important to be aware of this connection to harmonize human bonds to acquire
a deeper notion of ourselves and develop a shared, universal, collective consciousness by ensuring
the stability and social peace. It also leads to reshape the human future and get out of individualistic
greed which is killing us. Humanity could not reach a cogito-share resort in a universe devoid of
intelligence, no matter could have been organized in a universe devoid of photons.
Relating Q issues with PH impacts directly on social phenomena. Leads to a 'personal-social
revolution'; to strengthen shared responsibility. It is the birth of a 'humanistic collective' which is
authentic. To understand and internalize this idea would ensure collective thoughts and behaviors
develop which are more human. This would deeply change our way to build knowledge, our way of
building the SC and PH. The standard model does not reflect the real place of the human. In the
universe we are actors-creators and not its mere observers-calculators.
Our proposal involves an epistemological-ontological revolution that attempts to solve the crisis
that humanity suffers full of individualism and selfishness, which has forgotten the pursuit of
13
spiritual, rational and universal wisdom in lieu of a materialist-deterministic model of the moment.
Our proposal is intended to break the limit imposed by the classical model that has overshadowed
the collective potential of the cogito. Our idea could reconstruct the social fabric by making it more
sensitive; our model cannot be imposed from any philosophical or scientific community but must be
understood and internalized by every human being.
We need new ideas and proposals to move towards a new humanity to develop
responsibilities, shared intelligence and spirituality. We need humanity to progress towards a state
of non-selfishness, non-individualism and we need a new philosophical view of the universe and of
life. Thus, the PH may contribute to a new ethics proposal to remove the SC from the mercantilism
of the need to sell ideas; it deteriorates and is detrimental to the same SC. This is our intention in
this article.
MENTAL EXPERIMENT 'smart particles'
Deleuze says that man needs to develop a curiosity prepared for the unexpected. Let's go through
the inverse problem, we propose this experiment with the intention of incorporating the quantum
structure of thought and place ourselves in another's place and think about the world from there.
The ability to ask and create is not rescinded; the question itself should leave us perplexed.
Consider this: we have needed of certain experiments and instruments to give a level of 'reality'
different to the one which we are used and that is verified to exist from a number of experiments.
With the experiment of black body radiation we were first introduced to the quantum level. There
began to appear photons. Now, let's imagine the following: through certain equations and
experiments the 'smart particles' discover that there is a world of 'large objects', those 'large objects'
they observe separately, have a local behaviour, and by some calculations their movements can be
predicted. A rare thing for 'smart particles'; the macro level they have just discovered has a
particular order. For them this is impossible, unthinkable such a world, so they become bewildered.
14
1) How would a 'smart particle', belonging to the quantum level, understand and comprehend the
classical level? The particles observed in the classical level 'things', 'objects', do not interact, as they
do in their own quantum world: they are all 'stacked', 'cramped', moving very fast, connected,
interacting. Their 'common sense' is used to indeterminism.
2) How would a particle re-educate its 'common sense' and thus understand the classical level?
3) How would the particles produce a new logic, re-educate their intuition and create a different
language to understand and to represent through images that classical level so different from their
own level?
4) How would the 'smart particles' conceive the concept 'object'? Since this is macroscopic and they
do not handle classical words and concepts. They have to invent a new model, new language with
'words' to define and understand these "things / objects' and their' properties'.
5) How would they do to define the substance and the accidents of these objects?
6) How would they define the Being of the classic things? Surely to the 'smart particles' it is very
difficult to understand and define words, like 'Being' at the classical level, perhaps because they are
accustomed to use quantum symbols to define and describe their own level. Particles probably find
it very difficult to understand the logic of the third excluded.
Ever since man discovered the quantum level he has asked the following questions: Is it
possible to define particles as objects? How to define an object without observable properties using
a classical language? How to define the substance of these 'objects' by classical logic and
language?
The 'smart particles' to discover the classical level, ask the following questions: How to
define and understand that, which is called 'object' with observable properties using quantum
symbols? How to define the substance of these objects through the abstractions of quantum
physics? How to describe and understand that these things called 'objects' have a trajectory? They
cannot understand how these classical objects are in one place or another. For them it is very
15
difficult to understand this new level because they start from a quantum bias. For them everything is
quantum: their 'structure of thought' and their 'common sense' is quantum.
7) Do 'smart particles' have to build a new physics to understand the classical level? A new physics
with a scale by which to understand the 'objects', 'things' they observe. And this new physics will
have new philosophical foundations. How will their ontology be? Will ti be a quantum ontology?
So, they must develop ontology for the classical level?
8) By what 'experiment', did the 'smart particles' discover the classical level? Perhaps the
experiment would be the anti-analogue of black body radiation.
9) How do the 'smart particles' come up with an experiment and an instrument to show that at the
classical level things behave as particles or waves. Their physics is quantum physics is by
excellence and their 'instruments' are also quantum.
10) How do the particles observe the classical level through their own 'instruments'? They must
invent a classical instrument to show them a level where 'things' are not all interacting with each
other. A tool that allows them to separate each 'object' from its context, allowing them to 'see' the
'edge of things'. The particles must move out of their 'quantum reality' to discover and understand
the classics. They need something to help them understand that when acting together are the effects
are classical, therefore the laws cease to be probabilistic and become instead deterministic.
11) If the 'smart particles' achieve different physics and with it they develop concepts and invent
words and classical instruments to observe and understand the classics: did they do everything,
then? Would they obtain a complete theory that describes the end that represents the entire
universe? Perhaps with this new physics they could acquire 'conscience' of collective action, to act
in collaboration.
12) If all are 'aware' of all, in the quantum world, they should be 'aware' of their effects when they
act together to form a solid small body or a large body such is a planet.
16
13) If there are not 'aware' of collective action: How do they group together to form visible matter
together at a classical level? Do they have 'consciousness' in a quantum level than if they act
together classic effects are produced?
14) How would the 'smart particles' understand that their probabilistic laws hold a world of
deterministic laws? Quantum physics came about because the curves obtained in the experiments of
black body radiation needed to be explained: a quantum consideration of light was done. That is, to
our classical physics it raised a problem that could not, nor can be solved with concepts from
classical physics. This means that for 'smart particles' to discover the existence of a level with
deterministic laws, a problem must arise that cannot be solved by their own quantum physics.
15) What problem can arise in quantum physics of 'smart particles', which cannot be managed or
resolved by its own physics?
16) Do they also get the measurement problem?
17) The challenge of contemporary man is to re-construct the knowledge by developing a 'cogito
complexus', to re-build the knowledge transforming it to generic base of contemporary PH, and to
conquer a generic rationality that is truly democratic dimension that develops the dimension of
'notridad'. That is to say a wise man compromised with the world responsible for collective action
and shared intelligence intertwined with the universe.
18) What is the challenge of 'smart particles'?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bitbol, Michel, Mécanique Quantique. Une introduction philosophique (Paris, Champs
Flammarion, 1997)
Bitbol, Michel, Physique & Philosophie de l’esprit (Paris, Flammarion, 2000)
Bitbol, Michel, Théorie Quantique et Sciences Humaines (Paris, CNRS Éditions, 2009)
Bunge, Mario, Survey of the Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. (EEUU, American Journal of
Physics, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp. 272-286, 1956)
Choplin, Hugues, La Non-Philosophie de François Laruelle (Paris, Kimé ISBN : 2 -84174-199-0.
2000)
Deleuze, Gilles. Guattari, Félix, Qu’est-ce que la philosophie? (Paris, Les Éditions de Minuit, 2008)
Del Bufalo, Erik, Deleuze et Laruelle. De la schizo-analyse a la non-philosophie (Paris, Kimé,
2003)
D’Espagnat, Bernard, Le Réel Voilé. Analyse des concepts quantiques (France, Fayard, 2003)
17
D’Espagnat, Bernard, Traité de Physique et de philosophie (France, Fayard, 2002)
Derrida, Jacques, Positions (Paris, Les Éditions de Minuit, 2007)
Goldstein, Herbert, Mecánica Clásica (Madrid, Aguilar, 1972)
Granger, Gilles Gaston, Sciences et réalité (Paris, Odile Jacob, 2001)
Gribbin, John, Le Chat de Schrödinger. Physique Quantique et Réalité (Paris, Champs Sciences,
2008)
Klein, Étienne, Il était sept fois la révolution. Albert Einstein et les Autres (Paris, Champs
Sciences, 2005)
Klein, Étienne, Le facteur temps ne sonne jamais deux fois (Paris, Champs Sciences, 2007)
Laruelle, François, Introduction aux sciences génériques (Paris, Petra, 2008)
Laruelle, François, Philosophie Non-Standard. Générique, Quantique, Philo-fiction (Paris, Kimé,
2010)
Legay, Jean-Marie. Schmid, Anne-Françoise, Philosophie de l’interdisciplinarité (Paris, Petra,
2004)
Leblond, Jean-Marc Lévy. Balibar, Françoise, Quantique (Paris, Rudiments Masson, 1997)
Leblond, Jean-Marc, A quoi sert la science? (Paris, Bayard, 2008)
Omnés, Roland, Les indispensables de la mecanique quantique (Paris, Odile jacob - sciences,
2008)
Omnés, Roland, La Révélation des lois de la nature (Paris, Odile jacob - sciences, 2008)
Omnés, Roland, Filosofía de la Ciencia Contemporánea (Barcelona, Idea Books, 2000)
Ortoli, Sven. Pharabod, Jean-Pierre, Le cantique des quantiques. Le monde existe-t-il ? (Paris, La
Découverte / Poche, 2007)
Penrose, Roger, El Camino a la Realidad. Una guía completa de las leyes del universo (México,
Debate, 2008)
Prigogine, Ilya, La Fin des Certitudes. Temps, chaos et les lois de la nature (France, Odile Jacob,
2001)
Prigogine, Ilya, ¿Tan sólo una ilusión? (Barcelona, Tusquet, 1983)
Ramunni, Girolamo, Les Conceptions Quantiques de 1911 a 1927 (Paris, Vrin, 1981)
Schmid, Anne-Françoise, Les Sciences, les philosophies et la pensée : une affaire de justice (Paris,
Kimé, 2005)
Warner, Pierre, Les Philosophies et la science (Paris, Gallimard, 2002)