|
Читайте также: |
I. Prigogine and I. Stengers in their book «Order out of chaos. Man’s new dialogue with nature» noted that «proofs of impossibility, or non-existence (whether it concerns the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics or thermodynamics) showed that nature cannot be described «from outside», from the position of an onlooker. Description of nature is a living dialogue, communication, and it is bound to limits testifying that we are – macro creatures dipped into physical world"1. So it is noted here that the impossible existences are connected with such determination of a subject being which is the basis of a dialogue of a man with nature. In the former physical theories, in the mechanics of Galilei - Newton, for example, that is recognized as existence what is considered as an impossible in the new theory, in the Einstein’s theory of relativity, then agreeing with the above mentioned statement of I. Prigogine and I. Stengers, we have to suppose that the subject of cognition, corresponding to with the former (old) theory exists not as act «actor» but as «an onlooker» of the «drama of being» (N. Bohr). On philosophical language it may be formulated in such a way: the subject a classical theory (mechanics of Galilei - Newton) is transcendented to the cognized world, but the subject of a non-classical theory (theory of relativity) is immanented to the cognized world. Trancsendentness of a subject is connected with the recognition of such existences in the world, which are impossible for the immanent subject and vice versa. So the character of subject being in the world is relative to the recognition of some existences in the world. We may also say that different physical realities «require» different subjects. So the ontology of a subject is correlative to the physical ontology.
Recognition of existence of only immanent subject, installed in nature in the form of an experience, corresponds to the methodology of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. But such recognition generates some principal difficulties of the methodological character, which are not always paid attention to. One of such difficulties is the paradox of measurement, which is adherent both to the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. It is connected with the problem of distinguishing of a means and object of measurement and we are going to present it in the generalized form. In order to get some information about the state of an object it is necessary to measure it with the help of some instrument. According to the evidences of the instrument we judge about the state of the object. But these evidences must be addressed to somebody. That is why if we speak about the evidences of the instrument as about the observed fact, then it is necessary to suppose the existence of one more instrument with the help of which we can define the state of the first instrument. But such discourse is logically endless. And it means that physical experience can not be the criteria of distinguishing of what is observed and who is observing. The state of the object is relative to the means of measuring. So, if we suppose that nature makes experiments over itself, then we should say that it does not know what it is observing or even whether it observes something or not. In other words, the phenomenon of knowledge as the idea of something, which is not presupposed by the structure of the objective physical experience, is not deduced out of it and not immanent to it. This circumstance is vividly manifested in the well-known paradox, called the paradox of reduction of the wave function in quantum mechanics. Einstein formulated this paradox in 1928. According to von Neuman without entering of the phenomena of consciousness into the act of quantum-mechanical measurement we do not be able to understand the phenomenon of reduction of wave functions. A lot of articles were published about this paradox, but the discussion has not been ended yet. And it is not wonder, if we notice, that a lot of critics of this paradox, mostly among physicists, try to decide the gnoseological problem by means of the methods of physical sciences, what is refer interesting and may be fruitful but not avoid this problem2. The necessity of introducing of the phenomenon of consciousness in the act of measurement in general, but not only in the act of quantum-mechanical measurement is connected with the fact that the knowledge of something presupposes the existence of self-consciousness. This circumstance was well substantiated by Descartes and then by Kant. No experience, no instrument of measurement know their own states without measuring them. This is characteristic of human. So the subject of observation can not be identified with the physical conditions of cognition, whether it is the system of coordinate, watches or some other instruments. Understanding of this fact led N. Bohr to the complementarity principle according to which states of some instrument should be described in the terms of classical physics, and interaction of the instrument with the quantum object should be described in the terms of quantum mechanics. This principle means that the subject of observation can not be identified with measured quantum reality. Transaction from the language of quantum mechanics to the language of classical physics is the way of «turning-off», distancing or transcendenting of the subject from cognitionable physical reality.
In the language of physics the attitude of the observer to nature can be expressed by the principles of short-range and action at a distance. The attitude of transcendental subject is described with the help of the principle of action at a distance, and the attitude of immanent subject is described with the help of the principle of short-range. Out of the analysis of the paradox we may conclude that in modern physics both principles are necessary for the comprehension of the process of cognition.
It is known that the principle of action at a distance is in the basis of mechanistic understanding of the world. It is connected with the principle of determinism of Laplace, with Newton’s ideas about the absolute space and time. It is also connected with the classical comprehension of objectivity of cognition and knowledge. According to the classical methodology objective knowledge is knowledge about some object as it exists itself outside of and being independent of the subject comprehending and from the process of cognition. Universality of the principle of action at a distance in the classical science means that it can be applied to the object-object, object-subject and subject-subject relations. All these relations exist without time. Physical laws are formulated here in such a way that physical processes described by them are not «fastened» to «the arrow of time», they take place as they can happen at any time in the Past, Present or Future. In cognitive subject-object relations time can not play the principle role either. Timeless character of subject-subject relations means that timeless, eternal or self-equal during the time subjects interconnect. The difference between the subject of experience may have only a spatial character: they exist in different places of the absolute space. But all these empirical subjects are equal to the united transcendental subject which is similar to «Divine Mind» (Laplace), knowing about the world everything up to some concrete physical experience. Such subject is the bearer of a priori knowledge about the world. Empirical subjects can share this knowledge but only with the help of their own experience. It means that they get in the end of ends one and the same objective knowledge about the world, i. e. the true knowledge about the fact how the world exists itself. This is the source of monologism of thinking of a classical subject. In such world there is no problem of understanding between empirical subjects as in spite of the fact that they «see» the world differently, they «see» one and the same objective world. The description of such world contains no information that this world is observed or recognized by somebody. Knowledge of such world is “humanless”, it belongs to nobody. Out of this we may say that absolute subject of the classical natural sciences do not possess the being in the recognized world, and we cannot comprehend this subject as the non-being of the world. Such subject has not a dialogue with nature.
The principle of short-range sets another scheme of understanding of interrelation of objects and subjects. In short it can be characterized as relativism. Being of objects is relative to the other objects and subjects. It is reflected in the content and principles of the theory of relativity and quantum theory but the opposite statement is also true: being of a subject is relative to system of object’s relations. The relativity of the being of the subject is the consequence of the fact that the subject here is understood there only as the agent of objective relations of things forming in the world, in nature. The thesis about “the death of the subject” (M. Foucalt) is the categorical expression of this statement. The given «ideology» is based on the acknowledgment of the existence only empirical subjects - subjects of experience. The experience is interpreted on the basis of the principle short-range. As it was said above such interpretation of experience does not allow drawing the line between observer and observed. So in the given «ideology» the traditional understanding of truth and objectivity of knowledge is inadmissible. All this found its reflection in «methodological anarchism» P. Feyerabend. This is the victim which sacred by the methodology of science, which admits the existence only of the immanent subject of cognition.
I think that it is absolutely not enough only to oppose the methodologies of the classical and non-classical science. For the more profound understanding of their place and significance in the understanding of the process of the cognition of nature it is necessary to apply to the finding out of their philosophical basis. Philosophical paradigms of Plato and Aristotle are of this kind to my mind.
3. Plato’s and Aristotle’s paradigms of non-being.
These paradigms are opposite to each other and they are defined by different interpretations of being. Plato’s ontology is based on the principle of a relation: a relation to the non-being constitutes being. The non-being is imagined as other of being. Relation between of them is not mediated of anything. So in the dialogue «Parmenides» Plato thought about that how the transition from rest to motion occurs. States of rest and motion exist out of time. Transition from the state of rest to the state of motion occurs «suddenly», timeless. The transition state is a non-being. The notion of timeless transition contents the idea of an action of a distance, that is an action, which has an infinite velocity of spreading in space. This action is not mediate, it has not intermediate states and elements. It has not a time distance, but it has a space distance. In this connection I should like to pay attention to the interesting observation of P. Gaidenko. She notices that such kind transitions can be presented as a transition from N-dimensional world to N+1- dimensional world3. Profound this consideration may be interpreted, for instance, as follows. Let’s imagine a point, which oscillates between two places with the infinite velocity. In any moment of real time a point is present in any place of length direct. Such motions of a point create a new object – length, which has greater dimension than a point. Such manner it may be create flatness from moving a length. Objects with greater dimension can not be created from motion with the final velocity of objects with smaller dimension. Here one kind of being (for instance, length) is a non-being for other kind of being (for instance, point), and vice versa. According to Plato’s paradigm the transition from one kind of being to other occurs timeless. Here is the main idea of the physical principle of action at a distance.
Aristotle proposed an alternative paradigm. It is based on the interpretation of non-being not as a special kind of existence, but as a predicate of some sublying essence. Transition from one opposition to other is realized not directly, as Plato supposed, but it is a mediate - through a sublying. Thereby between two different states always exists the third, which links the first two. The principle of mediation follows from this. Due to this principle Aristotle explained any transition, change or relation. According to him a relation is not primary in the determination of being. But it is determined by being of things. In opposite of Plato Aristotle understands a motion, a change as a property of things. Thus a transition occurs always through something. Here we can see a source of the physical principle of short-range.
Let’s pay attention to the fact that the fundamental philosophical ideas that are based the principle of action at a distance and the principle of short-range result from different evaluations of status of category of non-being. Plato recognized the ontological status of category of non-being. Due to Plato’s paradigm we can speak that something does not exist in nature. Being exists with the respect of non-being. In this context the negative principles of scientific theory have some sense. These principles disclaim some existences. So, for instance, one of the principles of thermodynamics confirms that the perpetuum mobile does not exist. In the theory of relativity we have a principle, according to which does not exist superrelativistic velocities. In quantum mechanics Heisenberg uncertainty principle speaks about of impossibility of simultaneous existence of definite values of impulse and space coordinate of particle. In all these cases the relation determines a physical reality to such kind impossible existence. In the sphere of the subject-object relations the paradigm of Plato can mean that the being of cognition reality is determined by the relation to its non-being – subject of knowledge. As a matter of fact non-being of the subject of knowledge is a transcendentness of cognition being. So in given paradigm we can define the subject as a result of transcendenting of cognition being.
Category of non-being has only a logical meaning in the Aristotle’s paradigm. Here a non-being is reduced to the absence of some predicate of one thing, which appertain to other thing. In context of our analysis this means that all axioms or principles of a scientific theory must be affirmative judgments, which say of only about that something exists or one can exist. The being of each thing is given by its own essence. Relations between things are manifestations of properties of things. The properties are given by essence. According to Aristotle a knowledge of things is a notion that is a result of extraction of general in things with the help of comparison of things. Accordingly the subject of cognition is not isolated from the world of things, but it is a associate with them. An experience is a mediator between ideal being (notion) and a real being of general in things. That paradigm requires the subject of knowledge, which is an immanent of the world of things. The subject is such specific thing, which is kept in it in the form of notion essence of nature things.
The above-mentioned shows that Plato’s paradigm creates a basis to the rationalist conceptions of cognition, which acknowledge the existence of the transcendental subject and a priori knowledge. On the other hand Aristotle’s paradigm recognizes only a posteriori knowledge and it bases empiricism and apprehension about the immanent subject.
The above-mentioned leads us to the paradoxical conclusion. On the one hand, for instance, the theory of relativity is connected with the Aristotle’s paradigm due to recognition the principle of short-rang, on the other hand it is associated with the Plato’s paradigm due to аn apprehension of the impossible existence. The same we can say about the quantum mechanics. Such combining seems logically impossible, but however facts say about of other. Facts say that these two paradigms can be compatible. But how does it possible? And what is the sense of such coordination?
For the answer to putted question we shall take analysis of such physical theory, where the combining two contrary paradigms and two contrary principles is realized.
Дата добавления: 2014-12-18; просмотров: 105 | Поможем написать вашу работу | Нарушение авторских прав |