Abstract
From a historical point of view the main goal of Kant’s transcendental deduction in the Critique of Pure Reason was to show that there are well defined limits for the validity of the synthetic judgements a priori. Since objects of experience are constituted by means of certain categories, the general statements which follow from these categories are a priori valid for all objects of experience, but the a priori validity is also restricted to these objects. “Consequently, there can be no a priori knowledge, except of objects of possible experience.”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
I. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason,B 166.
I. Kant, l.c. A 97.
I. Kant, 1.c. B 600.
N. Bohr, “The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory”, Nature 121 580–590 (1928).
G. Ludwig, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics I and II, Springer-Verlag Berlin, 1983 and 1985.
W. Heisenberg, Physikalische Prinzipien der Quantentheorie, S. Hirzel Verlag, Leipzig, 1930.
G. Hermann, “Die naturphilosophischen Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik”,Abhandl. der Fries’schen Schule, Neue Folge 6, Heft 2, Verlag Öffentliches Leben, Berlin 1935.
C. F. v. Weizsäcker, “Das Verhältnis der Quantenmechanik zur Philosophie Kants”, 1941 in: Zum Weltbild der Physik 8, S. Hirzel Verlag, Stuttgart 1960.
E. Cassirer, “Determinismus und Indeterminismus in der Modernen Physik”, Göteborgs Högskolas Arssrift XLII (3), 1936, Göteborg 1937.
P. Mittelstaedt, Philosophical Problems of Modern Physics (Engl. trans.), D. Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht, Holland 1976.
I. Strohmeyer, “Tragweite und Grenze der Transzendentalphilosophie zur Grundlegung der Quantenphysik”, Z. für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie XVIII/1–2 (1987), pp. 239–275.
P. Busch and P. Lahti, “A Note on Quantum Theory, Complementarity, and Uncertainty”, Philosophy of Science 52 (1985), pp. 64–77.
P. Busch, “Unsharp reality and joint measurements for spin observables”, Phys. Rev. D, 33 (1986), pp. 2253–2261.
P. Busch, “Unsharp Reality and the Question of Quantum Systems”, in Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics, P. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt, eds., World Scientific Publ. Co., 1987, pp. 105–125.
P. Mittelstaedt, A. Prieur, and R. Schieder, “Unsharp Particle-Wave Duality in a Photon Split Beam Experiment”, Foundation of Physics (1987), pp. 891–903.
P. Mittelstaedt, “Unsharp Particle-Wave Duality in Double-Split Experiments”, in Franco Selleri, ed., Wave-Particle Duality, Plenum Press, New York and London, 1992, pp. 169–186.
It should be emphasized that the “unsharpness” which is meant here, corresponds to an objective indeterminateness which must not be confused with the observer’s subjective ignorance or the experimental inaccuracy, respectively. (Cf. also Ref. 15, p. 893 and Ref. 16, p. 170).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1994 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mittelstaedt, P. (1994). The Constitution of Objects in Kant’s Philosophy and in Modern Physics. In: Parrini, P. (eds) Kant and Contemporary Epistemology. The University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, vol 54. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0834-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0834-8_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-4359-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-0834-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive