Antonino Drago

In the last times some scholars tried to characterize Einstein’s distinction between ‘constructive’ – i.e. deductive - theories and ‘principle’ theories, the latter ones being preferred by Einstein. Here this distinction is qualified by an accurate inspection on past physical theories. Some previous theories are surely non-deductive theories. By a mutual comparison of them a set of features - mainly the arguing according to non-classical logic - are extracted. They manifest a new ideal model of organising a theory. Einstein’s paper of 1905 on quanta, qualified by him as a ‘principle theory’, is interpreted according to this model of theory. Some unprecedented characteristic features are manifested. At the beginning of the same paper Einstein declared one more dichotomy about the kind of mathematics in theoretical physics. These two dichotomies are recognised as representing the foundations of theoretical physics. With respect to these dichotomies the choices by Einstein in the paper on quanta are the alternative choices to Newton’s ones. This fact gives reason to the ‘revolutionary’ nature that Einstein attributed to his paper.

Nella storia della metafisica è stato un grande problema come chiarire l’idea della coincidentia oppositorum (la coincidenza degli opposti) di Cusano, il quale è riconosciuto comunque da Cassirer come il primo epistemologo del pensiero moderno, in particolare come colui che ha saputo conquistare l’infinito alla mente umana. Dopo alcuni secoli, ha avuto una grande importanza una idea simile a quella di Cusano, la dialettica di Hegel, la quale aggiunge una negazione ad una prima frase negata per ottenere una sintesi in termini generali. Ma poi queste idee sono state sempre meno seguite, eccetto che nel XX secolo da un filosofo non accademico, Lanza del Vasto che ha criticato Hegel e si è ricondotto a Cusano. Nello scritto esamino questa tematica mediante gli strumenti recentemente forniti dalla logica matematica, già verificati sugli scritti di altri scienziati; essi sono capaci di distinguere con precisione che cosa, negli scritti di uno studioso, è un passaggio logico formale e che cosa è una semplice illazione, derivata dalla conoscenza comune o dalla sua creatività; e se è un passaggio logico, decidere di che tipo di logica è. Per mezzo di questo metodo formale, i) presento alcune caratteristiche del ragionare di Cusano; ii) critico il metodo di Hegel; il risultato si accorda con la analisi critica di Hegel che Lanza del Vasto ha compiuto in maniera intuitva; iii) dimostro che la relazione tra Cusano e Lanza del Vasto è più forte di quanto dichiara quest’ultimo; iv) suggerisco una spiegazione della coincidentia oppositorum, chiarendo che la novità di ragionare in logica non classica è stata così innovativa che il tentativo di Cusano di precisarne il metodo è risultato in una scorciatoia, non errata ma valida solo in alcune situazioni; mentre è stato deviante il tentativo di Hegel; Lanza del Vasto, che ha portato un contributo al metodo di Cusano, si è comunque reso conto che occorreva arrivare a formalizzare un nuovo tipo di logica, che oggi risulta essere quella non classica. In definitiva, occorre attribuire a Cusano il merito di aver suggerito una nuova maniera di razionalità logica, quella capace di ragionare in logica non classica e di averne dato, sia pure in maniera imprecisa ed oscura, una prima formalizzazione.

The change in the organization of science education over the past fifty years is quickly recalled. Being its cultural bound the lack of a conception of the foundation of science, the multiple innovations have resulted as temporary improvements without a clear direction, apart from the technocratic goal of an automation of learning processes. The discovery of two dichotomies as the foundations of science suggests a pluralist conception of science, and hence the need to entirely renew science education, in particular by introducing the notions of incommensurability and radical variations in meaning of the basic notions. This change was already anticipated by several proposals within each subject-matter.

The main algebraic foundations of quantum mechanics are quickly reviewed. They have been suggested since the birth of this theory till up to last years. They are the following ones: Heisenberg-Born- Jordan’s (1925), Weyl’s (1928), Dirac’s (1930), von Neumann’s (1936), Segal’s (1947), T.F. Jordan’s (1986), Morchio and Strocchi’s (2009) and Buchholz and Fregenhagen’s (2019). Four cases are stressed: 1) the misinterpretation of Dirac’s algebraic foundation; 2) von Neumann’s ‘conversion’ from the analytic approach of Hilbert space to the algebraic approach of the rings of operators; 3) Morchio and Strocchi’s improving Dirac’s analogy between commutators and Poisson Brackets into an exact equivalence; 4) the recent foundation of quantum mechanics upon the algebra of perturbations. Some considerations on alternating theoretical importance of the algebraic approach in the history of QM are offered. The level of formalism has increased from the mere introduction of matrices to group theory and C*-algebras but has not led to a definition of the foundations of physics; in particular, an algebraic formulation of QM organized as a problem-based theory and an exclusive use of constructive mathematics is still to be discovered.

MethodologyA new hypothesis on the basic features characterizing the Foundations of Mathematics is suggested.Application of the methodBy means of it, the several proposals, launched around the year 1900, for discovering the FoM are characterized. It is well known that the historical evolution of these proposals was marked by some notorious failures and conflicts. Particular attention is given to Cantor's programme and its improvements. Its merits and insufficiencies are characterized in the light of the new conception of the FoM. After the failures of Frege's and Cantor's programmes owing to the discoveries of an antinomy and internal contradictions, respectively, the two remaining, more radical programmes, i.e. Hilbert's and Brouwer's, generated a great debate; the explanation given here is their mutual incommensurability, defined by means of the differences in their foundational features.ResultsThe ignorance of this phenomenon explains the inconclusiveness of a century-long debate between the advocates of these two proposals. Which however have been so greatly improved as to closely approach or even recognize some basic features of the FoM.Discussion on the resultsYet, no proposal has recognized the alternative basic feature to Hilbert's main one, the deductive organization of a theory, although already half a century before the births of all the programmes this alternative was substantially instantiated by Lobachevsky's theory on parallel lines. Some conclusive considerations of a historical and philosophical nature are offered. In particular, the conclusive birth of a pluralism in the FoM is stressed.

.  Each predicate of the Aristotelian square of opposition includes the word “is”. Through a twofold interpretation of this word the square includes both classical logic and non-classical logic. All theses embodied by the square of opposition are preserved by the new interpretation, except for contradictories, which are substituted by incommensurabilities. Indeed, the new interpretation of the square of opposition concerns the relationships among entire theories, each represented by means of a characteristic predicate. A generalization of the square of opposition is achieved by not adjoining, according to two Leibniz’ suggestions about human mind, one more choice about the kind of infinity; i.e., a choice which was unknown by Greek’s culture, but which played a decisive role for the birth and then the development of modern science. This essential innovation of modern scientific culture explains why in modern times the Aristotelian square of opposition was disregarded.

A new hypothesis on the basic features characterising the Foundations of Mathematics is suggested. By means of them the entire historical development of Mathematics before the 20th Century is summarised through a table. Also the several programs, launched around the year 1900, on the Foundations of Mathematics are characterised by a corresponding table. The major difficulty that these programs met was to recognize an alternative to the basic feature of the deductive organization of a theory - more precisely, to Hilbert’s main tenet. Ironically, already half a century before the births of these programs the alternative organization has been substantially represented by Lobachevsky's theory on parallel lines. Moreover, although each program’s founder recognised the basic features in a partial way only, all together these programs represented just the four possible foundational approaches.

The book is the proceeding of a conference in Pisa 12007 on the philosophy of Lanza del Vasto - the unique Western disciple of Gandhi - examined under the items: his thesis work in Philosophy (Fabris), his Greek and Christian methaphysics (Salmeri), his criticism of Hegel (Vigne), the relationship with Gandhi (Manara), Trinity (Vermorel) Indian philosophical traditioon (Trianni), his henologixcal thinking (Reale) his trinitarian metaphysics (Bertini), his mystical thinking (Vannini) a logicaL analysis of his thinking(Drago), his philosophy and theory of non-violence(Cozzo) The relationship with Catholic Church (Tanzarella), Pedagogy (Butturini), sojourn in Pisa (Lanza)

The main subject of Cusanus’ investigations was the name of God. He claimed to have achieved the best possible one, Not-Other. Since Cusanus stressed that these two words do not mean the corresponding affirmative word, i.e. the same, they represent the failure of the double negation law and therefore belong to non-classical, and above all, intuitionist logic. Some of his books implicitly applied intuitionist reasoning and the corresponding organization of a theory which is governed by intuitionist logic. A comparison of two of Cusanus’ short writings shows that throughout his life he substantially improved his use of this kind of logic and ultimately was able to reason consistently within such a logic and recognize some of its basic laws. One important idea developed by him was that of a proposition composed of a triple repetition of “not-other” expressing “the Tri-unity of concordance” i.e. the “best name for the Trinity”. I complete his application of intuitionist logic to theological subjects by characterizing the inner relationships within the Trinity in such a way that there are no longer contradictions in the notion. Generally speaking, the notion of the Trinity implies a translation from intuitionist to classical logic, to which Cusanus closely approximated. Moreover, I show that the main aspects of Christian revelation, including Christ’s teachings, are represented both by this translation and by some doubly negated propositions of intuitionist logic. Hence, intuitionist logic was introduced into the history of Western theological thinking with Christian revelation, as only Cusanus partly recognized. Appendix 1 summarizes a detailed analysis of Cusanus’ second short writing. Appendix 2 shows that the Athanasian creed regarding the Christian Trinity is a consistent sequence of intuitionist propositions provided that some verbal emendations are added, showing that ancient trinitarian thinking was also close to intuitionist reasoning.

The current definition of Constructive mathematics as “mathematics within intuitionist logic” ignores two fundamental issues. First, the kind of organization of the theory at issue. I show that intuitionist logic governs a problem-based organization, whose model is alternative to that of the deductive-axiomatic organization, governed by classical logic. Moreover, this dichotomy is independent of that of the kind of infinity, either potential or actual, to which respectively correspond constructive mathematical and classical mathematical tools. According to this view a mathematical theory is based on the choices regarding these two dichotomies. As an example of this kind of foundation, arithmetic is rationally re-founded on constructive mathematical tools and the model of the problem-based organization. In conclusion, constructive mathematics is not only mathematics making use of constructive tools in intuitionist logic but also organized according to around a basic problem, solved by a method discovered using intuitionist logic.

Quel est le rôle de Galilée dans la naissance séculaire de la science moderne? Je réponds à la question ci-dessus à la lumière de deux nouveaux éléments. Dès le xvie siècle, Nicolas de Cues, quoiqu’il ne pratiquât pas la science expérimentale, a anticipé une partie substantielle de la révolution copernicienne et de la naissance de la méthodologie galiléenne. Le deuxième élément est l’introduction d’une nouvelle conception des fondements de la science ; ils sont définis comme constitués de trois dialectiques. Après cette définition, la naissance de la science moderne correspond à un très long processus historique qui se conclut à notre époque. Sur cette longue période, Galilée ne fut pas seulement le premier à recourir à une méthodologie scientifique, mais aussi presque le seul à jamais avoir été conscient de l’ampleur des enjeux intellectuels de l’entreprise scientifique.

At first sight the Theory of Computation i) relies on a kind of mathematics based on the notion of potential infinity; ii) its theoretical organization is irreducible to an axiomatic one; rather it is organized in order to solve a problem: “What is a computation?”; iii) it makes essential use of doubly negated propositions of non-classical logic, in particular in the word expressions of the Church-Turing’s thesis; iv) its arguments include ad absurdum proofs. Under such aspects, it is like many other scientific theories, in particular the first theories of both mechanical machines and heat machines. A more accurate examination of Theory of Computation shows a difference from the above mentioned theories in its essentially including an odd notion, “thesis”, to which no theorem corresponds. On the other hand, arguments of each of the other theories conclude a doubly negative predicate which then, by applying the inverse translation of the ‘negative one’, is translated into the corresponding affirmative predicate. By also taking into account three criticisms to the current Theory of Computation a rational re-formulation of it is sketched out; to Turing-Church thesis of the usual theory corresponds a similar proposition, yet connecting physical total computation functions with constructive mathematical total computation functions.

FROM THE HISTORY OF PHYSICS TO THE DISCOVERY OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS By Antonino Drago, formerly at Naples University “Federico II”, Italy – drago@unina,.it (Size : 391.800 bytes 75,400 words) The book summarizes a half a century author’s work on the foundations of physics. For the forst time is established a level of discourse on theoretical physics which at the same time is philosophical in nature (kinds of infinity, kinds of organization) and formal (kinds of mathematics, kinds of logic). This double side of the two dichotomies assures a deep comprehension of theoretical physics by avoiding both a purely philosophical analysis and a purely formal analysis, each manifestly insufficient for representing all the aspects of theoretical physics. Among the many formulations of a physical theory, e.g. Mechanics, also Mach(1) recognized technical differences only, Instead my suggestion is to consider their differences as revealing the characteristic features of their foundations. No more radical differences may exist than those concerning both their kinds of Mathematics and their kinds of Logic. As a fact, after the 20th Century within each of these sciences there exist two antagonist foundations, within Mathematics either the classical one or the constructive one(2); within Mathematical Logic either the classical logic or the intuitionist one(3). Let us take Mechanics as an instance. Being the choices of the Newton’s formulation respectively the actual infinity of the differential equations relying on the infinitesimals and the classical logic, a formulation based on the alternative choices is Lazare Carnot’s,(4) whose mathematics is no more than algebraic-trigonometric and the logic is the intuitionist one, because this formulation makes use of doubly negated propositions, whose corresponding affirmative propositions are idealistic or false; i.e. in these cases the law of double negation fails, as in intuitionist logic occurs. By considering these two dichotomies as the foundations of the physical theories, each couple of choices upon them fashions one out four models of scientific theory, which are baptized through the authors of their most representative theories: Newtonian, Carnotian, Lagrangian, Descartesian. In correspondence four versions of the principle of inertia are recognized, as suggested by respectively: Descartes. Lazare Carnot, Enriques and Cavalieri.(5) All that suggests that the four models of scientific theory may be graphically represented as a compass orientating our minds amid the so numerous physical theories. By taking these dichotomies as interpretative categories, a new interpretative history of Physics including both classical and modern physics results according to a quadrilinear development. The birth of modern physics is characterized by the two theories - Einstein’s paper on special relativity and Einstein’s first paper on quanta - whose choices are the alternative ones to those of the previously dominant physical theory, Newtonian mechanics: in the latter paper Einstein i) declares the dichotomy on the kinds of mathematics (“Introduction”) and then he chooses the discrete mathematics; ii) by using doubly negated propositions he organizes his theory in an alternative way to the deductive-axiomatic one.(6) Moreover, a new history of Philosophy of knowledge results. Kant’s first two a priori transcendental categories represent the physical interpretation of the two choices out of the four pairs of choices on the two dichotomies, i.e. the choices of the dominant theory of mechanics, Newton’s. Hegel’s dialectic was a misleading attempt of anticipating the subsequent intuitionist logic. The book starts by a comparison of different formulations of thermodynamics in order to recognize the first dichotomy on the kind of organization. In chapter 2 the dichotomy on the kind of infinity is recognized through a comparison of Newrton’s mechanics and Lazare Carnot’s. A quickly history of the other classical physical theories is illustrated in chapter 3; it results a foundational conflict between the last two theories, and hence a conflict between their opposite couples of choices. The two main theories of modern physics, special realtivity and quantum mechanics confirm the foundational role played by the two dichotomies which gives reason for the radical change in the history of theoretical physics. Indeed, the opposition of the two main pairs of choices gives reason of the crisis in theoretical physics in the early 1900s. As a global result, the book represents the first interpretation of the entire history of Physics, both classical and modern; This fact proves that the four models of scientific theories can works as a compass (that of the front cover) suggesting a direction among the many physical theories. This new history of physics leads to re-visit both Koyré’s and Kuhn’s historiographies. Their interpretative categories are interpreted and explained through the two dichotomies so that it is possible to suggest à la Koyré categories based on the alternative choices theories to Newton’s as the suitable categories for interpreting the alternative theories to Newton’s mechanics. All that suggests a new interpretation of the crucial step in the history of Western philosophy of knowledge, i.e. the passage from Leibniz to Kant: Leibniz’s suggestion of the two labyrinths of human minds may be seen as a close anticipation of the two above dichotomies. Kant applied them in order to construct the well-known four cosmological proofs, which however he misinterpreted as leading to contradictions, instead to tow different methods of investigation corresponding to the two different kinds of logic.(7) Bibliography 1. Mach E. (1883), Die Mechanik, Leipzig: Brockhaus, Chap. IV, Sect. III. 2. Bishop E. (1967), Constructive Analysis, New York: Mc Graw-Hill. 3. Heyting A. (1962), Intuitionism. An Introduction, Amsterdam: North-Holland. 4. L. Carnot (1783), Essai on the Machines en général, Defay, Dijion (Enlish translation: Springer, Berlin, 2020). Drago A. (2004), “A new appraisal of old formulations of mechanics”, Am. J. Phys., 72(3), pp. 407-9. 5. Vella M.R. (2007), “Le quattro versioni del principio di inerzia”, in M. Leone et al. (eds.), L’eredità di Fermi, Majorana e altri Temi. Napoli: ESI, pp. 147-151. 6. Drago A. (2014), “The emergence of two options from Einstein°s first paper on Quanta”, in Pisano R., Capecchi D., Lukesova A. (eds.), Physics, Astronomy and Engineering. Critical Problems in the History of Science and Society, Scientia Socialis P., Siauliai, 2013, pp. 227-234. 7. This and all in the above points are illustrated by the book Drago A. (2017), Dalla Storia della Fisica ai Fondamenti della Scienza, Roma: Aracne.

I characterize Bishop's constructive mathematics as an alternative to classical mathematics, which makes use of the actual infinity. From the history an accurate investigation of past physical theories I obtianed some ones - mainly Lazare Carnot's mechanics and Sadi Carnot's thermodynamics - which are alternative to the dominant theories - e.g. Newtopn's mechanics. The way to link together mathematics to theoretical physics is generalized and some general considerations, in particualr on the geoemtry in theoretical physics, are obtained.that

The obscure and punctuated history of symmetry is compared with the history of the celebrated and exalting notion of infinitesimal; some considerations about them are derived. A long list of odd and hidden events concerning symmetry in theoretical physics is offered. The last event is the discovery of the nature of the same word “symmetry” which pertains to non-classical logic, and it is linked to the principle of sufficient reason. A comparison of the roles played by the two mathematical techniques within a classical physical theory is performed. It leads to recognize the different roles played by the two mathematical tools as a manifestation of an incommensurability phenomenon caused by two foundational dichotomies.

In previous papers I have characterized four ways of reasoning in Peirce’s philosophy, and four ways of reasoning in Computability Theory. I have established their correspondence on the basis of the four pairs of choices regarding two dichotomies, respectively the dichotomy between two kinds of Mathematics and the dichotomy between two kinds of Logic. In the present paper I introduce four principles of reasoning in theoretical Physics and I interpret also them by means of the four pairs of choices regarding the above two dichotomies. I show that there exists a meaningful correspondence among the previous three fourfold sets of elements. This convergence of the characteristic ways of reasoning within three very different fields of research - Peirce’s philosophy, Computability theory and physical theories - suggests that there exists a general-purpose structure of four ways of reasoning. This structure is recognized as applied by Mendeleev when he built his periodic table. Moreover, it is shown that a chemist-, applies all the above ways of reasoning at the same time. Peirce’s professional practice as a chemist applying at the same time this variety of reasoning explains his stubborn research into the variety of the possible inferences.

Whereas “Science does not think" (Heidegger), the "new historiography of science" - mainly Koyré's and Kuhn's ones - has addressed our minds to think about science in a new way. Recently Heelan suggested taking this new viewpoint for conceiving hermeneutic method in a more adequate way to present scientific practice. By an interpretative analysis of the categories of the above two historians, the present paper suggests a new way to conceive the foundations of science. Two basic dichotomies result: on the kind of logic and on the kind of mathematics. They generate four models of scientific theory, sharply severed by the radical differences in their respective choices; that offers an accurate definition of incommensurability and even of an alternative scientific theory to a dominant one, which can be properly called a paradigm. In the past hermeneutic scholars gave negative appraisals on Western science; according to the new viewpoint recognising pluralism in the foundations of science, these appraisals concern the dominant paradigm only. In the light of the basic dichotomies a new way to define hermeneutics is suggested; it can be qualified in short by the following words: ‘The understanding of science is the science of understanding’.

Double negations are easily recognised in both the so-called “negative literature” and the original texts of some important scientific theories. Often they are not equivalent to the corresponding affirmative propositions. In the case the law of double negation fails they belong to non-classical logic, as first, intuitionist logic. Through a comparative analysis of the theories including them the main features of a new kind of theoretical organization governed by intuitionist logic are obtained. Its arguing proceeds through doubly negated propositions and ad absurdum arguments. Then, the final doubly negated predicate is translated in the corresponding affirmative one, from which all the consequences are deduced in order to test them against reality. According to this model the true formalization of intuitionist logic is Kolmogorov’s 1932 paper. The above analysis also shows that modal words play an auxiliary or substitutive role to intuitionist propositions. In addition, it is shown that Vasiliev’s paraconsistent logic is represented through doubly negated propositions. By means of these three kinds of logic one can attribute a specific kind of logic to each of the three distinct steps of the process of building a scientific theory from the experimental data to its final theoretical system. It is also shown that the definition of negation is of a structural kind, rather than of an objective kind or a subjective kind: it has to be referred to the organization of the theory to which it belongs.

All suggested notions of reduction of two scientific theories are critically reviewed and analyzed. In particular those applied to the case of the alleged reduction of Chemistry to Quantum mechanics are examined. Since it is recognized that the weakness of this field of research is the lack of a definition of a scientific theory, it is suggested that a scientific theory is characterized by two choices regarding two dichotomies, that is, the kind of mathematics and the kind of logic. According to this view a reduction is only possible between two theories in which the same choices are shared. As a consequence, only one case of reduction in the history of physics is recognized: physical optics to electromagnetism, a case that is commonly accepted. The other cases of claimed reductions are recognized as impossible, owing to the different choices of the two theories at issue and hence the radical variations in meaning of their shared basic notions. In particular, the claimed reduction of Chemistry to Quantum mechanics is disproved in detail.

Authoritative appraisals have qualified this book as an “axiomatic” theory. However, given that its essential content is no more than an analogy, its theoretical organization cannot be axiomatic. Indeed, in the first edition Dirac declares that he had avoided an axiomatic presentation. Moreover, I show that the text aims to solve a basic problem (How quantum mechanics is similar to classical mechanics?). A previous paper analyzed all past theories of physics, chemistry and mathematics, presented by the respective authors non-axiomatically. Four characteristic features of a new model of organizing a theory were recognized. A careful examination of Dirac’s text shows that it actually applied this kind of organization of a theory, confirming formally what Kronz and Lupher suggested through intuitive categories (pragmatism and rigour), i.e. Dirac’s formulation of Quantum mechanics represents a distinct theoretical approach from von Neumann’s axiomatic approach. However, since the second edition Dirac has changed his approach: although relying again on analogy, his theory refers to the axiomatic method. Some considerations on the odd paths which led to the present formulation of QM are added. They suggest that a new foundation of this theory needs to be found.

Two dichotomies are considered as the foundations of a scientific theory: the kind of infinity—either potential or actual-, and the kind of organization of the theory—axiomatic or problem-based. The original intuitionist program relied on the choices of potential infinity and the problem-based organization. I show that the logical theory of Kolmogorov’s 1932 paper relied on the same choices. A comparison of all other theories sharing the same foundational choices allows us to characterize their common theoretical development through a few logical steps. The theory illustrated by Kolmogorov’s paper is then rationally re-constructed according to the steps of this kind of development. One obtains a new foundation of intuitionist logic, which is of a structural kind since it is based on and developed according to the structure of the above mentioned two fundamental choices. In addition, Kolmogorov’s illustration of his theory of intuitionist logic is an instance of rigorous reasoning of the intuitionist kind.

A re-visitation of Joule’s experiment motivates a critical analysis of thermodynamic notions: heat, total energy, first principle, organization of a scientific theory, its relationships with logic and mathematics. A rational re-construction of thermodynamics is suggested according to the model of a problem-based organization, that Sadi Carnot applied to his formulation. The new formulation accomplishes the long time theoretical process started by Joule’s experiment within physicists community's collective mind, i.e. the process of exiting out Baconian science for suggesting a first theory out Newton’s paradigm, and eventually for introducing a pluralism of incompatible physical theories.