Marcel Chelba

Comments on an article by David Tong in Scientific Amertican:

Is Quantum Reality Analog after All?

Quantum theorists often speak of the world as being pointillist at the smallest scales. Yet a closer look at the laws of nature suggests that the physical world is actually continuousmore analog than digital. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-quantumreality-analog-after-all

13. kantinomus 07:54 AM 11/27/12 I think we will not be able to overcome this dilemma until we understand "what it means to know" and "if reality is intelligible or not" unless "the very essence of reality is to be unintelligible". If "scientific knowledge is only a hermeneutics of empirical experience" (as I argue, as an extension of Kantian epistemology and of Copenhagen School), the "continuous" and "discrete" are not two "complementary aspects of reality but only two "complementary paradigms of our faculty of representation", ie two "matrix" (grids of interpretation), substantially diffent, which we apply alternative to reality, 1

based on our empirical data, to obtain predictions the smallest margin of error. They give us the illusion that they were part of the very flesh of reality because of their local and temporary success in our empirical experiments. Reality is neither "continuous" nor "discrete". Depending on how we cut reality, and the microscope through which we look, "physical reality" answer us "as if" should be "continuous" or "discrete", but we can not afford this illusion only because margin of error in our representation is, for the moment, within acceptable limits. "Standard model" will necessarily be a compromise between these two "mathematical paradigms". If this compromise is impossible, it means that we are condemned to endlessly troubled by this dilemma and that physical reality will smile forever, enigmatic, outside all our scientific theories, as will be fine. In other words, I move this "dilemma of physics to the domain of epistemology because it's not only of physics, but of our entire scientific knowledge. "Epistemological dilemma" that I raise is whether "empirical reality" choose her "model of interpretation " or our "model of interpretation" choose his "empirical reality"? I have this problem more fully theorized in chapter "Dilemma and method of metaphysics" in my book "Critical Introduction.

On the possibility of metaphysics as a science in the perspective of Kant's critical philosophy "(2004). Is available on Scribd, in Romanian. In English, only a small fragment. http://www.scribd.com/doc/17474184/Marcel-Chelba-Kantiantetralogy-Vol-I-Critical-Introduction-About-the-possibility-ofMetaphysics-as-Science-in-the-critical-philosophy-of-Kant