Realidad y mundo: ¿Es cuestionable la «realidad» del mundo?

Abstract

An etymological revision of the terminological connections between “reality“ and “world“ allows to conclude that the criticism of Kant, which denies Realität to the World as an omnitudo realitatis, at the same time that it admits the existence of the Wirklichkeit of the things into this world by interfacticity with the corporeal egos that are experienced by us, they critically determine both the 20th Century (A. Einstein) cosmological discussions , and the phenomenological and existential categorizations of the current philosophy (M. Heidegger). In order to question “world’s reality”, it is necessary to keep both gnoseological fronts open. In philosophy not every realism has to be materialist, but the materialistic philosophers defend the realism of the common experience (G. Santayana). Nevertheless, the ontological commitment with the materialism is not a mere consequence of the scientific realism (M. Bunge). Beyond the discussions on the compatibility or incompatibility of the "quantum theory" and of the «theory of the relativity» and of the final defeat of Einstein (Bell's inequality, experiment of Aspect, etc.) who could not establish a unified field theory, the physicists who distrust in the metaphysical affirmations about the world, because they do not do affirmations on things in themselves, but on the remarks carried out with his sensory organs and his devices, they end up by embracing subjective and/or phenomenist positions, in the line of Hume and Kant. However, at the same time, they have no
choice but to consider the forces, the functions or the fields that they discover, as well as the possible causal series that they describe in the most precise way as possible, as real reflections (authentic, true) of the «world in which we live». In the article it is argued that the real philosophical meaning of the quantum mechanics is that, it came to question the «real world of the daily experiences, in which the classic physics still seemed to move, producing (on the rebound) a rupture between «reality» and «world». Or the "reality" was exceeding the "world" (and then we should recognize the existence of «not mundane realities»), or the idea itself of the «only world» was stopping being univocal (and then the quantum equations send us to a «plurality of worlds», which, on the one hand, are «ghost-worlds» because they only exist when they are not observed, while on the other they are «virtual realities», which are only updated when they are
observed). The fact that the interpretation of Copenhagen come against the philosophy that the neopositivism had withdrawn from the stage of the intellectual confrontation, it
not only demolishes the dogma which states that «the limits of the language were the limits of the world», but it also forces the quantum physicists to say things about «what
it is not possible to speak»: What type of «reality» is that which remains when the "world" disappears in the immense limits of the space - time or in the infinitesimal borders of the microphysics? For the philosophical materialism the scientific developments of the physics have philosophical significance, both gnoseological and ontological, not because of the interpretations, but of the constructions. The article ends up by repeating that ontologically the semantic content of the Idea of Matter is not the unit, but the multiplicity (G. Bueno). This agreement point between the materialists breaks when one tries to unify the reality under the transcendental umbrella of a gnoseological Ego, that only appears like a scheme of the critical rationality demanded by the material multiplicity itself in order to be able to realize the way back, the progressus towards the departure configurations. But by giving it ontological existence, as if it was a question of a unitary pole destined to turn into the conerstone of the World, we fall down again in the transcendental temptation (even theological) that we try to avoid.