What becomes of our clearest theories of explanation, when faced with the unpalatable quantum phenomena that seem to undermine the direct conceptual connection between the fundamental material entities and the self-standing material objects of everyday parlance? The general explanatory theory advocates unification of explanatory concepts with everyday discourse, identification of essentially similar characteristics between direct experience and the hypothesised explanatory ontology, and a conceptualisation of phenomena in terms of objects enduring causally regulated change. On the other hand quantum theory feeds (...) antirealist suspicions about the worth of realist explanatory endeavour with examples of phenomena in which the structure of material separation and individuation based on spatial extension is insufficient for construction of deeper explanatory narratives. An example from history of science, that of Newton’s law-constitutive definition of objects in response to D escartes problem of bodies is used to suggest a possible strategy for explanations unifying the quantum and common-sense conceptual domains, provided the anti-realist challenge to such enterprise is read as questioning the epistemological justification of interpretation of experience in both cases.Što se događa s najjasnijim dostupnim teorijama objašnjenja kada se suoče s problematičnim kvantnim pojavama koje naizgled potkopavaju neposrednu konceptualnu poveznicu između fundamentalnih materijalnih entiteta i samoopstojnih materijalnih predmeta iz svakodnevnog govora? Opća teorija objašnjenja preporuča objedinjenje teoretskih eksplanatornih pojmova sa svakodnevnim govorom, određenje esencijalno sličnih karakteristika između neposrednog iskustva i hipotetske eksplanatorne ontologije te konceptualizaciju pojava kroz predmete koji istraju kroz uzročno regulirane promjene. S druge strane, kvantna teorija potkrjepljuje antirealistične sumnje o valjanosti eksplanatornog nastojanja realizma primjerima pojava u kojima je struktura materijalne razdvojenosti i individuacije temeljene na prostornoj protežnosti nedovoljna za izgradnju dubljih eksplanatornih narativa. Primjerom iz povijesti znanosti, Newtonovom definicijom predmeta temeljenom na zakonima kao odgovorom na Descartesov problem materijalnih tijela, daje se moguća strategija izgradnje objašnjenja koja objedinjuju kvantne i “zdravorazumske” konceptualne domene, ukoliko se antirealistična kritika te izgradnje u oba slučaja shvati kao propitivanje epistemološkog opravdanja tumačenja iskustva. (shrink)

Od samih početaka razvoja kvantne mehanike javlja se potreba metafizičkog razgraničenja “makro” svijeta opisanog “svakodnevnim jezikom” i “mikro” svijeta kojim se bavi formalizam teorije . U tekstu se raspravlja o potrebi pomirenja ovako umjetno razgraničenih svjetova, uz pregled najvažnijih pravaca tumačenja formalizma teorije. Posebno se izlaže Bohrovo “kopenhaško” tumačenje i problemi koje pred njega postavlja EPR misaoni eksperiment. Pregledom Bohrovih odgovora na dani eksperiment, pokazuje se da njegovo tumačenje traži više od ograničenja svakodnevne deskriptivne metafizike pri opisu pojava na mikro-nivou. (...) Na taj način gubi se Bohrovo povlašteno mjesto meðu tumačenjima formalizma teorije. Pokazuje se da se niti MacKinnonov detaljniji shematski prikaz spajanja teoretskog i svakodnevnog jezika ne može primijeniti na zaključke EPR eksperimenta i Bohorov odgovor na njih. Sam MacKinnon nudi prijedloge izmjena “svakodnevnog” jezika uvjetovane matematičkim zaključcima kvantne mehanike, ali se i one pokazuju previše radikalnima i grubima da bi zauzele povlašteno mjesto u odnosu na ostala tumačenja teoretskog formalizma koja sa sobom nose velike ontološke i konceptualne zahtjeve.Ever since the beginning of development of Quantum Mechanics there was a metaphysical division between the “macro” world as described in “everyday language” and the “micro” world described by quantum formalism . A discussion is offered of the need to reunite these arbitrarily divided worlds through an overview of the main interpretations of the formalism. Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation, as well as the problems it faces due to EPR thought experiment, is presented in greater detail. It is claimed that Bohr’s answers to the said experiment demand more than a restriction of everyday descriptive metaphysics, when describing phenomena at the micro-level. Thus, the special place Bohr’s interpretation takes among other interpretations of the formalism is forfeited. It is also shown that MacKinnon’s more detailed schema aiming to connect the theoretical and everyday language cannot be applied to EPR conclusions and Bohr’s reply to those. MacKinnon’s own modifications of the “everyday language” induced by the mathematical conclusions of Quantum Mechanics are considered too radical and too coarse to take the vacated special place among formalism interpretations. (shrink)

Descartes’ derivation of the primary qualities of matter and their role in explaining observed physical phenomena are briefly reviewed. The lesson drawn from Descartes’ methodology of explanation is that we ought to aim to reduce complex phenomena to simple unifying principles and conceptual primitives. Three proposed solutions to the apparent paradoxes in contemporary quantum physics are briefly compared with lessons taken from Descartes. It is argued that further research in this field should provide criteria for selecting modifications to the standard (...) conceptual scheme, along the lines of either visualisable causality or the physical spatial separability of all material objects. (shrink)

Ever since the beginning of development of Quantum Mechanics there was a metaphysical division between the “macro” world as described in “everyday language” and the “micro” world described by quantum formalism. A discussion is offered of the need to reunite these arbitrarily divided worlds through an overview of the main interpretations of the formalism. Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation, as well as the problems it faces due to EPR thought experiment, is presented in greater detail. It is claimed that Bohr’s answers to (...) the said experiment demand more than a restriction of everyday descriptive metaphysics, when describing phenomena at the micro-level. Thus, the special place Bohr’s interpretation takes among other interpretations of the formalism is forfeited. It is also shown that MacKinnon’s more detailed schema aiming to connect the theoretical and everyday language cannot be applied to EPR conclusions and Bohr’s reply to those. MacKinnon’s own modifications of the “everyday language” induced by the mathematical conclusions of Quantum Mechanics are considered too radical and too coarse to take the vacated special place among formalism interpretations. (shrink)

Descartes’ derivation of the primary qualities of matter and their role in explaining observed physical phenomena are briefly reviewed. The lesson drawn from Descartes’ methodology of explanation is that we ought to aim to reduce complex phenomena to simple unifying principles and conceptual primitives. Three proposed solutions to the apparent paradoxes in contemporary quantum physics (primarily associated with the notion of entanglement) are briefly compared with lessons taken from Descartes. It is argued that further research in this field should provide (...) criteria for selecting modifications to the standard (largely Cartesian) conceptual scheme, along the lines of either visualisable causality or the physical spatial separability of all material objects. (shrink)

Despite a broad-range title the paper settles for the related issue of whether the Special Theory of Relativity necessarily advocates the demise of an ontological difference between past and future events, between past and future in general. In the jargon of H. Stein: are we forced, within the framework of the STR, to choose only between ‘solipsism’ and ‘determinism’ exclusively? A special emphasis is placed on the role that the conventionality of simultaneity plays in the STR with regards to this (...) question. The standard arguments rely on the relativity of simultaneity, the claim that the STR negates the existence of a universal ‘present’ that divides the ‘past’ and the ‘future’, so as to conclude that there is no ontological difference between past and future events, that both are equally determined/real. This often neglects the fact that to establish the ontological claims related to relativity of simultaneity, one must first resolve the issues of conventionality of simultaneity within the STR. The paper will aim to show that by addressing the issue of conventionality from Dummett’s ‘purely philosophical’ determination of the difference between the past and the future, we develop an understanding of the said difference, within the framework of the STR, beyond the strict ontological dichotomy of ‘solipsism/determinism’, given that the criterion that is provided by the STR is understood as epistemic and not ontological. (shrink)

Unatoč naslovu koji pokriva iznimno opširno područje, članak se usredotočuje na blisko pitanje da li Specijalna teorija relativnosti nužno zagovara ukidanje ontološke razlike između prošlih i budućih događaja, između prošlosti i budućnosti općenito. Izraženo žargonom koji uvodi Stein: jesmo li u okviru STR prinuđeni birati isključivo između ‘solipsizma’ i ‘determinizma’? Posebice će biti riječi o ulozi koju konvencionalnost istovremenosti u STR ima u pokušaju odgovora na ovo pitanje. Standardni argumenti pozivaju se na relativnost istovremenosti, tvrdnju da STR negira postojanje univerzalne (...) ‘sadašnjosti’ koja razgraničava ‘prošlost’ i ‘budućnost’, kako bi pokazali da nema ontološke razlike između prošlosti i budućnosti, da su obje jednako određene/zbiljne . Pritom se prešutno prelazi preko činjenice da je za uspostavu ontoloških tvrdnji vezanih uz relativnost istovremenosti potrebno prvo riješiti pitanje konvencionalnosti istovremenosti u okviru STR. U članku će se nastojati pokazati da promatranjem pitanja konvencionalnosti istovremenosti iz perspektive ‘čisto filozofskog’ Dummettovog određenja razlike između prošlosti i budućnosti možemo u okviru STR pokušati razviti shvaćanje razlikovanja prošlosti i budućnosti mimo stroge ontološke dihotomije ‘solipsizam’/‘determinizam’, ukoliko kriterij koji postavlja STR shvatimo kao epistemički, a ne kao ontološki.Despite a broad-range title the paper settles for the related issue of whether the Special Theory of Relativity necessarily advocates the demise of an ontological difference between past and future events, between past and future in general. In the jargon of H. Stein: are we forced, within the framework of the STR, to choose only between ‘solipsism’ and ‘determinism’ exclusively? A special emphasis is placed on the role that the conventionality of simultaneity plays in the STR with regards to this question. The standard arguments rely on the relativity of simultaneity, the claim that the STR negates the existence of a universal ‘present’ that divides the ‘past’ and the ‘future’, so as to conclude that there is no ontological difference between past and future events, that both are equally determined/real . This often neglects the fact that to establish the ontological claims related to relativity of simultaneity, one must first resolve the issues of conventionality of simultaneity within the STR. The paper will aim to show that by addressing the issue of conventionality from Dummett’s ‘purely philosophical’ determination of the difference between the past and the future, we develop an understanding of the said difference, within the framework of the STR, beyond the strict ontological dichotomy of ‘solipsism/determinism’, given that the criterion that is provided by the STR is understood as epistemic and not ontological. (shrink)

It can be assumed that if any part of our mental life is innate it could in principle be developed in private, i.e. is not of necessity a social product. According to the argument in de Sousa (1980), emotions can be subjected to rationality assessments, making them a part, albeit special (borderline), of our ‘rational life’. Contribution of emotions to the conduct of ‘rational life’ is important, as the characteristics of belief and action most commonly associated with rationality do not (...) provide sufficient grounds to guide an organism towards any particular course of action. By asking whether emotions (such that are still subjectable to minimal rationality assessments) can be developed in private (in a sense of Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations) we are asking whether there can be any part of our ‘rational life’ that could be innate, and thus not a result of social conditioning. A brief survey of the related issue of interpretation of Wittgenstein’s arguments against private language and rule-following reveals that the issue is not whether socially non-conditioned emotions could be experienced (exist), but whether we would ever, given the absence of ‘investigation independent standards of correctness’, be able to know that they are or are not. (shrink)

The article reviews Christopher Hitchcock’s Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science, aims to present contemporary issues in philosophy of science through a series of eight debates between leading analytic philosophers in the given specialist field. Each contributor argues for or against a proposed motion of the debate, ranging from issues of metaphysics and epistemology of science to specific philosophical questions in physics, biology and psychology. In that they draw on a wealth of techniques from the practice of philosophy of science (...) from conceptual clarifications to invocation of examples from scientific practice. Nonethless, against the background of philosophical work associated with contemporary scientific practice the topics selected for this volume seem limited in both depth and scope. The volume’s great worth is in presenting ‘philosophy of science in action’ by exercising many tricks of the trade in several self-contained chapters. (shrink)

The paper confronts the issue of single jurisprudence facing a value (-system) pluralism, the one often arising nowadays. Starting from the Raz – B. Williams debate, it outlines a proposal close to Raz’s but ontologically less demanding.

The article reviews Christopher Hitchcock’s Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science, aims to present contemporary issues in philosophy of science through a series of eight debates between leading analytic philosophers in the given specialist field. Each contributor argues for or against a proposed motion of the debate, ranging from issues of metaphysics and epistemology of science to specific philosophical questions in physics, biology and psychology. In that they draw on a wealth of techniques from the practice of philosophy of science (...) from conceptual clarifications to invocation of examples from scientific practice. Nonethless, against the background of philosophical work associated with contemporary scientific practice the topics selected for this volume seem limited in both depth and scope. The volume’s great worth is in presenting ‘philosophy of science in action’ by exercising many tricks of the trade in several self-contained chapters. (shrink)