RésuméScience et philosophie sont distinctes, mais tributaires l'une de l'autre. Toutes deux sont précaires, à des degrés différents; elles sont ouvertes.Une position ontologique est inévitable. En voici deux extrěmes: Sorte scientisme ou positivisme radical , et Position ontologique transcendantale .Il est vral qu'un dilemme se présente dans l'impossibilité de prouver que l'une ou l'autre soit la bonne position. Néanmoins, sans ce dilemme, il est douteux qu'aucun problème véritablement philosophique se pose.Il a de fortes raisons de penser que la position positiviste (...) radicale est plus proche d'une pensée fermée, tandis que la position ontologique transcendantale assure l'ouverture de la science comme celle de la philosophie.ZusammenfassungWissenschaft und Philosophie sind verschieden, beziehen sich aber gegenseitig aufeinander. Beide sind prekär, in verschiedenem Mass; beide sind offen.Ein ontologischer Standpunkt ist unvermeidlich. Dabei sind zwei Extreme möglich: eine Art Scientismus oder radikaler Positivismus und ein transzendental‐ontologischer Standpunkt .Ein Dilemma, das in der Unmöglichkeit liegt, den einen oder den andern Standpunkt als den einzig richtigen zu beweisen, besteht zu recht. Gleichwohl, ohne dieses Dilemma wäre es zweifelhaft, ob sich überhaupt ein wahrhaft philosophisches Problem stellen würde.Man hat guten Grund anzunehmen, dass der radikale positivistische Standpunkt näher einem Zugeschlossensein des Denkens ist, währenddem der transzendental‐ontologische Standpunkt die Offenheit sowohl der Wissenschaft wie auch der Philosophie sichert.Science and philosophy are distinct, but they rely upon each other. Both are precarious, in different degrees; both are open.An ontological position cannot be escaped. There are two extreme ones: A kind of scientism consisting in a radical positivism , and the transcendental ontological position .It is true that a dilemma arises: Neither of these positions can be proved to be the right one. Yet without the dilemma, it is doubtful whether any philosophical problem would arise at all.There are strong reasons to think that the radical positivistic position is nearer to a closure, whereas the transcendental one warrants the openness of science as well as of philosophy. (shrink)

Unification of physical theories is an ambiguous idea. Gravitation is perhaps distinct from “other” interactions. Arguments for a unification can be found, either from an analysis of the nature of time, or from the canonicity of most formalisms used in physics. Space-time continuum requires a physics of fields, but not necessarily of quantized fields. Various notions of space as used in physics show that these spaces—including Newtonian space—are never real spaces, but inventions of the mind not only useful, but necessary (...) for the development of many physical theories. Time is, on the other hand, real. (shrink)

The two main arguments concern(1) the presence of an “enlightened complementarity” between philosophic (including scientific) and religious (not including mystic) thought, and(2) the necessity to postulate a “threefold relationship” whenever one is to gain knowledge of any kind. They are both inspired by physics (from Bohr's “strict complementarity”, resp. from Newton's fundamental postulate).God's perfection resides at least in Symmetry in a generalized (not restrictively spatial) sense. Yet, as the argument goes, Space does not “exist” as a thing. Consequently, the Great (...) Geometer (God) cannot dwell within a World He creates, and it is wrong to speak about His (God's) ‘existence’; for, existence is bound to the temporal, and Time is, together with the World, part of God's creation. Thus the only possible creation consists in God separating World and Time from Himself: This is the paradigm of Symmetry-breaking.Polytheistic mythologies all assume such and such imperfection of their deities; hence perfection is meaningful for monotheism only. A relationship of a threefold (‘trinitary’) nature must then obtain between God, World, and Time; this is analogous to Newton's postulate relating force, momentum and time. Just as the latter and its specific generalizations must be “found true” by verification, the said threefold relationship must also be found true: within philosophic thoughtmore geometrico (in a generalized sense), within religious thoughtmore “hymnometrico”. Yet the complementarity (called “enlightened”) arising between the two kinds of thought is of a higher nature than Bohr's “strict” complementarity. While it can be understood from the role assumed by language itself, it can however only be disposed of within mystic contemplation. (shrink)

Tel Hamlet avec L'être ou ne pas être, on pourrait dire: Admettre ou ne pas admettre, Croire ou ne pas croire Ce que nous avons en vue est la question de la transcendance de l'être, qu'il est impossible de montrer du doigt et pourtant, semble‐t‐il, nécessaire d'admettre sinon l'édifice de la philosophie ne serait lui‐même qu'une fumée illusoire.