Philosophy and Interpretations of Quantum Non-Locality

In this brief paper, we argue about some epistemological positions about quantum non-locality

Convivial Solipsism as a maximally perspectival interpretation

A classification of different interpretations of the quantum formalism is examined and the concept of perspectival interpretation is presented. A perspectival interpretation implies that the truth is relative to the observer. The degree to which QBism and Convivial Solipsism are perspectival is examined and Convivial Solipsim is shown to be perspectival at a higher degree than QBism or at least than the QBism founders version.Comment: 16 page

Does Descartes have a principle of life? Hierarchy and interdependence in Descartes’s physiology

Descartes repeatedly refers to a 'principle of life' and appears to make grand claims for its role in his natural philosophy. These claims have been taken at face value in the literature. This paper argues that there is no single principle underlying the operation of the Cartesian body. I show that Descartes’s account of physiology explains the operation of the living body through multiple interdependent systems, with no one system more fundamental than any other. As such, Cartesian physiology is incompatible with a hierarchical conception of a body whose operations are driven by a single underlying principle

Parallels between Mindfulness and First-person Research into Consciousness

The article highlights some of the parallels encountered in the areas of mindfulness and first-person scientific approaches to research into consciousness. It thus considers the possibilities of using mindfulness as a scientific method in the area of cognitive science. We are well aware that both first-person research approaches in cognitive science and mindfulness as a type of Buddhist practice are intertwined with certain conceptual frameworks. This calls for a careful consideration of their individual characteristics, which may gain completely different meanings outside of their primary contexts. Since the concept of mindfulness has been a part of Western thinking for some time now, especially in the area of therapy, we believe it is necessary for a critical reflection on the possibilities of both of these areas to inspire each other. We touch upon some of the important epistemological and methodological questions, and point out some of the problems common to both empirical first-person research and Buddhist methods of contemplation of experience. More specifically, this work examines the problem of limited scope of insight, the subject-object split and excavation fallacy, the problem of researching everyday experience, and the issue of horizon. We also consider the question of research intention in both science and Buddhism. The conclusion gives some suggestions as to how these two areas might mutually benefit one another. We also point out the ethical aspects that Buddhism might contribute to scientific research, and the open-endedness that science could contribute to Buddhism and other spiritual practices.Članek osvetljuje nekatere vzporednice, ki jih lahko najdemo med prakso čuječnosti in prvoosebnimi znanstvenimi pristopi k raziskovanju doživljanja. Gre za razmislek o možnosti uporabe čuječnosti kot raziskovalne metode na področju kognitivne znanosti. Upoštevano je, da so tako pristopi prvoosebnega raziskovanja v kognitivni znanosti, kot tudi čuječnost kot praksa v budizmu, vpeti v določen konceptualni in kulturni okvir. To nedvomno zahteva veliko previdnost pri obravnavi posameznih značilnosti, ki lahko zunaj svojega konteksta dobijo drug pomen. Uporaba čuječnosti je že nekaj časa tudi del zahodnih pristopov, predvsem v terapiji, zato je dobrodošel kritičen razmislek o možnosti medsebojnega oplajanja obeh področij. Prispevek se dotakne nekaterih pomembnih epistemoloških in metodoloških vprašanj in opozori na nekatere probleme, ki so skupni empiričnemu prvoosebnemu raziskovanju in budističnim metodam zrenja doživljanja: problem omejenega spoznavnega dosega, problem razcepa med objektom in subjektom v t. i. napaki izkopavanja, problem raziskovanja vsakdanjega doživljanja in vprašanje horizonta spoznanja. Obravnavano je še vprašanje namere raziskovanja v znanosti in v budizmu. Zaključek nakaže, na kakšen način bi ti dve področji lahko sodelovali drugo z drugim. Izpostavljeni so etični vidiki, ki jih lahko znanstvenemu raziskovanju prispeva budizem, in odprta naravnanost, ki jo budizmu in duhovnim šolam lahko doprinese znanost

L'àtom d'Schrödinger

El paper central d’Schrödinger en l’adveniment de la Mecànica Quàntica és àmpliament reconegut pel relat històric oficial. Menys conegudes són, però, les grans diferències que va mantenir amb el corrent majoritari de la física teòrica un cop establerta aquesta teoria. La seva lluita (1935-1961) es va centrar en revisar les bases de la teoria quàntica, posant especial èmfasi en la interpretació. En aquest article elaborem un esquema històric dels arguments que va aportar, principalment en relació amb la qüestió de la constitució elemental de la matèria. Argumentem que les idees tardanes d’Schrödinger, sovint malinterpretades, poden aportar contingut útil a un debat encara vigent. The central role of Schrödinger in the birth of Quantum Mechanics is widely acknowledged by the official historical accounts. However, his refusal of the main stream in theoretical physics once the quantum theory was established is less known. His struggle (1935-1961) focused in revisiting the foundations of the quantum theory, with special stress on interpretation. In this paper we give a historical outline of his claims, specially with regard to the elementary constitution of matter. We argue that the latter ideas of Schrödinger, often misunderstood, can provide useful insight into a debate which is still alive.