We present a program under development, an unfinished building, to build a new rationality, and modernize thought. We are trying to do something completely new which places us outside the Standard patterns: transform categories-mechanisms, expand concepts-symbols, and create generic abstractions with the intention to seek the intelligibility of the natural world. Building this new way of thinking can lead to a new way to found knowledge; this would give an understanding of the world beyond calculation and foreshadowing. Although there was a great scientific progress in recent years, important anomalies reveal severe limitations in the Standard paradigm and this is due to paradigm not seeing the universe functioning as a result of chance and interactions. This scenario requires new models, new formalisms, new categories that resolve key fundamental-transcendental issues; a new program is needed that models the patterns, with symbols, complex objects, technological objects, molecular-cellular existential questions: The result of this modeling will have semantic value, cultural-social-virtual-vectorial-human. Given the collapse of cultural-intellectual-morality of our society, the philosophy of the 21st century must contribute to the formation of new principles and formalisms: the great task of the contemporary philosophy is to create to transform the world! The accumulated knowledge has reached a point where this legacy became ineffective. The way of thinking and the way of building life are showing signs of exhaustion in all areas, due to their individualistic and selfish characteristics. This legacy does not allow us to develop a new understanding of nature, it also does not allow us to reconstruct the social fabric. The ideas which we propose in this article require a profound cultural-scientific-philosophical-epistemological rethinking, ranging from the quantum entities level to life in society. Re-building twenty-first century reality embodies a radical innovation. We tried a rapprochement between philosophy (PH) and quantum physics (Q) in order to build more general categories which modify the relationship between philosophy and science (SC); a PH inspired by Q to reach the notion that ‘quantum (Q) is the paradigm of contemporary (SC)’ (Bernard D’Espagnat). We propose to move and relocate certain issues about Q (quantum entanglement, non-distinguishability, non-separation capability) to the field of PH so that both build generic abstractions. This task can have a direct and profound effect on the way of thinking, of building knowledge and individual-social human behavior.
This requires redefining and expanding the status of certain concepts-categories: (i)’Intelligence’, understood as shared intelligence has existential overtones. ‘Intelligence’ is not a uniquely human quality, it has varying degrees of intelligence and it would have the ubiquity attribute. Understanding the idea of a ‘ubiquitous intelligence’ (intellegentia ubïque) binding energy and matter allows to redefine life: that is to transform individual competition into cooperation based on trust to share the most purely personal: thoughts, emotions, feelings, beliefs. As a ‘synchronicity’ of wills and responsibilities, a ‘collective intelligence’ greater than ‘intelligence of each of the parts’. This implies a great intellectual and spiritual effort: a collective need which benefit would create an opportunity for the advent of a new rationality, a human overcoming the category of ‘homo’. This transformation is not by chance but by choice, which is why it’s a job that involves commitment; (ii) ‘disciplinary’ ‘interdisciplinary’, it is necessary to expand these mechanistic expressions and move beyond the fragmentation-multiplicities to build a more democratic dialogue between SC-PH. The ‘discipline’ and ‘interdisciplinary’ concepts are ‘classical voices’ that could not end the domination of one discipline over another. Interdisciplinary has become another discipline, which is why is has not been able to integrate-relate-connect ideas nor problems, it also could not end the figure of the scientist as the sole creator of knowledge. Which is generic puts an end to interdisciplinary effort and amplifies the disciplinary work.
To modernize means thinking out of the classical notions and build generic formalisms that emerge as ‘family branches’ and include notions Q-PH. The current formalism of PH is that which emerges from the first philosophers? Is it the only or is there a possibility of developing them from other axioms? This would bring enormous consequences! Quantum systems function as a whole, the extent of its parts affects the whole: there is non-separation of system elements. Quantum systems have the characteristic of unity-identity, i.e. the Q cannot be described under the glass of realism or of strict causality. The interpretations of quantum physics might be inadequate, because they are classic ways of trying to understand phenomena that are not classical? Our proposal is to address quantum phenomena from a non-classical field, that is, leave the deterministic classical thought that has ‘encapsulated the cogito’. And pass on to our descendants how to produce the break. That is, to teach the next generation to develop a ‘cogito complexus’ so they can articulate knowledge and imagination; understanding and developing the ability to share thoughts, feelings, attitudes and responsibilities. This leads us to rethink existence intertwining life, energy, matter and intelligence non-locality: it is a new way of thinking about human evolution. Is it the ‘quantum leap of Being’? Towards a more sensitive-compassionate humanity with collective elections-responsibilities, oriented towards a time of unity and identity of ‘feelings’. We need to abandon the mechanical structure which imposes us to progress at all costs and prepare for a revolution to start at the molecular level so that it spreads to the individual life-collective, cultural-social. Thus, this way the PH may contribute to an ethic that addresses the commodification of the SC and the urgency to sell ideas, which is detrimental to the creative human progress itself.
Dehumanized behavior of man is the result of a vicious competition to transmit a pattern that rules it: greed, selfishness and individualism. This pattern dragged us to the economy crisis, political, moral, social; we are the height of insensitivity. 21st century man must break this vicious pattern, creating a more humane way of thinking that would respond to contemporary problems with new strategies. It is no longer possible to use mechanistic strategies to solve problems of a completely different nature. One of Einstein’s most lucid thoughts refers to “only a mind which is different from that one which has created our problems can solve them.” What is the responsibility of the philosopher? (Noam Chomsky). We propose to develop a different way of constructing knowledge with ‘the generic’ (François Laruelle), as flexible-inclusive category to end the classic resources that slow thinking: reduction, fragmentation, dualisms. The mechanistic paradigm has grown in excess of formulas and concepts, this is a way that is repeated, however the generic is a category that does not repeat. The generic strategy eliminates the ethical conflict, the interdisciplinary promises and experimentation as the only resource to find the truth. Truth is no longer sought but isalso lived. Neither the different ethical-philosophical systems, neither interdisciplinary nor scientific experimentation can create a different way of thinking. What is the contribution of the philosopher at a time of global crisis? Ethical-philosophical systems cannot end the furor over war or violence of man against man; interdisciplinary thinking is a strategy of the classic paradigm that produces interpretations with recurring debates leaving unanswered passages, which has slowed the creation of new ideas; scientific experimentation has enthroned calculation and prediction leaving outside imagination and intuition. All this does not develop a better understanding of the world. Our proposal is not to accept the usual as natural and genuinely contribute to a change of man that is meaningful to humanity, this is the great compromise: ‘humanize the inside to create an outside which is freer and fair’. It is the compromise of a philosophy which creates human knowledge. Move and relocate the Q issues to the PH towards a revolution within the core of thought that spreads towards a deep social change by generating a collective sensibility. It is the passage of ‘homo sapiens sapiens’ saturated with deterministic knowledge, materialistic, linear and fragmented into a ‘wise man’ that feels, lives and respects life with wisdom. It is interesting to realize that the subatomic particles could give us their properties, since human are ‘matter-energy’ (both made of subatomic particles). But it is also interesting to realize that humans could move one of their fundamental properties to subatomic particles: ‘intelligence’. Then we have that ‘matter-energy’ are manifestations ordered by one of the greatest attributes of life, ‘intelligence’.
The problems of the contemporary age are not solved with anything already known: they are brand new, they relate with interactive processes, that’s why they produce a breakthrough in our thinking. Understanding these processes requires the incorporation of strategies never before handled by thought. Man needs a new level of abstraction to re-create reality and re-raise the dynamics of building his cogito. A cogito that can link the different dimensions of reality and give birth to ideas and collective attitudes for the first time in the history of mankind. It is a radical innovation of the cogito that frees us from the classical doctrine of growth at any price no matter the human cost (mechanistic-classical paradigm). It is a cogito that weaves information in a shared dialogical frequency, from it come out multiple possible interactions from generic facts. This platform builds knowledge introducing the virtual as a creative element (Anne-Françoise Schmid). Is it possible to philosophize including the virtual? Contemporary philosophy is radically different, is far away from repetition and creates with the same tools of science: modeling and virtual. Creating and shaping the “scientific-philosophical objects’ from the non-separation of knowledge. They are ‘generic objects’ that can be modeled and represented by larger and more dynamic formalisms.
The new cogito to describe and understand the workings of entangled particles because its structure is built on foundations which are quantum laws, it is a ‘cogito’ with new computational skills including a new skill: the ability to ‘co-feel’, that is to share feelings. This new skill creates a new intellectual and spiritual way of thinking about the matter-energy bond-intelligence. We are talking about a style achieved through a collective effort of abstraction that leads to link ‘feelings’ personal.
Entangled particles cannot appear as individual particles with well-defined states but rather as a system. This system behaves as a whole and for its status measurement affects the whole. This interaction does not decrease with distance. In the entanglement there is simultaneity and instantaneity. Quantum entanglement is one of the most unusual that the Q provides to the description of the dynamics of the relationship between two entities. There is no equivalent interaction in classical physics. Is there a PH for understanding the odds? The PH of the century can describe the phenomena in terms of │ Ψ │ ² and understand a world where laws are not only Newtonian and where intelligence is located right on the interaction; it can understand that ‘reality’ consists of particles that behave like waves. Does the contemporary PH give the conditions so that the Q can model the collapse of the wave function? This ‘reality’ is constructed through interaction between the particles and the same human cogito, which is re-built in this interaction: a new model. There is a mutual enrichment, this idea changed the way we perceive life, the way we connect with each other. The key is to understand the importance of intelligence in the new model! The particles are not elemental by themselves, they become elementary through interaction. The particles interact, themselves forming complex systems and their behavior becomes collective. Collective behavior is qualitatively different from individual behavior: the whole is not the sum of its parts. Intelligence is in the interaction and organization of the particles. This model includes intelligence. Interaction + quantity = new intelligent organized behavior (principle of self-organization).
Intelligence is in the interaction, the wave function of the entire system! Then, if the interaction becomes elementary particles and particle interaction organized in more complex systems transforming their behavior: the interaction gives some intelligent pattern particles. The particles are not in a vegetative state (classical paradigm), but they are active, they are with man, co-creators of reality. This is why we talk about ‘intelligence sharing’.
The idea of ’shared intelligence’ has an impact on human relationships. We are at the dawn of a humanity that not only observes the universe, but lives it. The stage of life is radically transformed because it’s human rationality which changes. Our age needs urgent new parameters in the construction of thought, knowledge and attitudes; our age needs the advent of a spiritual rational and sensitive humanity. We need to change our anthropocentric model of intelligence. Intelligence is not unique to man but is divided into different levels in the universe. The ‘ubiquitous intelligence’ is a wave function that organizes the quantum states: the higher interaction, the more complex it becomes.
Particles are in electrical charges in the cells as well. The cells carry the genetic code, the code is an ‘intelligent pattern’ that humans share with the world leading to a ‘generic code’. Life is a phenomenon of interaction codes. Life understood in this way leads to the development of a ‘complex-collective cogito’ which overcomes the anthropocentrism. A collective thinking creates conditions of possibility of co-existence and shared responsibilities.
To break with the mechanistic fidelity and intellectual narrowness classical to avoid repeating the patterns of thought and behavior of our ancestors, we propose not to transfer to the next generation our current thinking and knowledge construction. The generational cultural transfer of thought-disciplinary split-individualist violent behavior is what is destroying humanity. The slave left the cave to observe the ‘true classic’ and become open-minded man. Now unprejudiced man must leave the ‘sensible world’ and enter a ‘virtual world’ to think, create ‘generic truths’.
Moving towards quantum categories ‘philosophical objects’ will allow us to give the means and conditions to re-construct knowledge, to bring forth the SC PH and transforming them into a contemporary space that is neither one nor the other, but generic. We propose the transfer and posting of the following:
1) First movement: move the principle of non-separation of quantum entities│ Ψ (x ₁ x ₂) │ ² = │ Ψ (X ₂ x ₁) │ ² to the idea of indiscernibility universe / human: quantum entities after the interaction are intertwined, and they transmit their structure instantly.
Quantum non-separation may also explain the idea of indiscernibility between universe / human. The physical property underlying the entanglement is non-separation. The system state at any instant is described by a vector because it represents the space where the system is a vector. That space is a space of wave functions and contains all the information the system at that time. Therefore it is not possible to factor the probability distribution of random variables as two separate distributions product:
Px₁,x₂ (X₁,X₂) ≠ Px₁ (X₁) Px₂ (X₂)
I.e. for any state of two particles that are expressed as a superposition, the probability distributions are dependent:
Ψ (X₁, X₂) ≠ Ψ₁ (X₁) Ψ₂ (X₂) → P (X₁, X₂) ≠ P₁ (X₁) P₂ (X₂)
Not that the observer’s consciousness interfere with the behavior of particles. The act of measurement is not a problem, as viewed from the classic position. The problem of the measure might not be a quantum postulate, but derived from other postulates. Can the PH solve the quantum measurement problem?
The universe and humans ‘link’ information, intelligence and genetic code. In the ‘link’ the genetic code becomes generic code: hence the indiscernibility. The act of measurement shows that the man and the universe are ‘indistinguishable’. In a system of entangled particles, their probability distributions are linked to each other and share qualitative properties, those properties are intrinsic to the entity, i.e. are generic properties. The states of two or more entangled particles, whose properties are generic cannot be described separately any more, it is a non-local relationship: a single wave function that represents the entire system. We could think that between humans the same thing happens. After the interaction of two people a dimension of ‘us’, a field of shared feelings that takes humans outside the entrapment of “me”.
The particles that form a system all have the same features, they are considered: identical or indistinguishable. The concept is to shift the wave function obtained when two particles interact, it must represent the same state as the original wave function: the principle of non-distinguishability.
This principle applied to society does not involve loss of individuality or personality. If the particles can be bound linking the structure of behavior, individuals can associate to form a harmonized humanity: a collective individuality.
2) Second movement: move the phenomenon of quantum entanglement to the concept of ‘co-existence’. Show that entangled particles are not isolated entities. Human beings are not isolated and we can develop the ‘sense of collaboration’, i.e. place ourselves in the place of others but with the thinking of others and feeling the same as the other. This leads us to build shared mental models. Goes beyond empathy, means to live and feel the emotion of another. A’link connection’ is achieved, it is the guarantee that human existence can share just a social organization in perpetual peace. Quantum entanglement cannot be well understood with binary logic, when there are multiple entangled particles the sensitivity of the system increases significantly. The same can happen in the social system. So every human that interacts with another human, will never be the same again after that. Any action that a human causes to another will be felt by other humans that have interacted with him, i.e. the action immediately and directly affects the human who performed the action. It is a ‘moral generic collaboration’. For thousands of years, man was a thief of man: man expropriated land, water, goods and ideas of other men. The contemporary human need to conquer this new moral urgency it will end up being thought of man thief attacking itself.
3) Third movement: move the phenomenon of collective action of entangled particles to the concept of ‘co-intelligence’. Entangled particles have a collective behavior, the human moral ‘generic collaborative “meeting develop a life shared. This allows the advent of humanity with a high level of understanding and commitment. Through this last trip we raise the idea of ’smart particles’, expanding the concept of intelligence (Armand Hatchuel / Teoria CK). If we apply the idea of ’generic’ to neurons and objects, we get ‘generic neurons’ and ‘generic objects’, then if the neurons are formed by particles and objects are composed of particles, the concept of ‘particles’ and the concept of ‘intelligence’ are unchanged. Increase the potential ‘particles’ with the generic attribute of ‘intelligence’: so we can speak of ‘generic photons’, ‘generic neurons’. In granting the generic attribute to particles, we have generic particles and if they are generic we can claim to have the attribute of ‘certain intelligence’. Our proposal of ‘smart particles’ produces synergies that allow us to understand the idea of why and how “everything is connected to everything.’ That is, humans (as quantum particles) are bonded in the interaction. In the interaction, the particles report of the chance to be found in a region of space by the square of its wave function and the human informs his actions by his ‘cogito’, this leads to a single wave function of the entire system: wave function that has “some intelligence”. The particles by interacting with humans they incorporate ‘some intelligence’! The energy and information spread like intelligence. Our intelligent interactive model modifies the intelligence status and it includes it. Like photons, intelligence is everywhere. The particles-the human-the universe vibrate under the same wave function: the same pattern tuning. Intelligence is the unifying field of fields. This cannot be explained by the development of traditional science, she has confined the intelligence in the human brain.
Our proposal is only possible and understandable from a new paradigm since inside the exhausted the classical model (scientific model) it is not possible. Our proposal also addresses the issue of a model that divides the human universe. The infinitely small is grouped to form the infinitely large; both levels are integrated and interact to give existence which fundamental wave function is a “generic code of intelligence ‘that connects man with the universe. Intelligence fluctuates through the universe and defines matter. Humans must realize that intelligence fluctuations define it and connect it with other humans. Intelligence has no description nor place in the classical model, but if it does in the intelligent interactive model we propose. In our model, intelligence is the fundamental attribute of the universe and not an exclusive property of man. The wave function of the whole system develops in the universe different scales and these scales create our ‘reality’. Particles to interact with humans are ‘true intelligence’ of the universe. The man tells the world about their particular view of events, and creates the ‘reality’, but the information back to us, the “reality” also creates us, i.e. defines the existence of intelligence. That is why we speak of a ‘shared reality’ and we can talk of ‘co-existence’. Due to interaction each human is responsible from the thought that comes from the universe, this way, humans participate in the creation. This is our responsibility; it is here that we begin to feel our connection to the whole.
Daily life should be viewed as a field in which no action is required on each individual but collectively to generate a coherent functioning society. This gives a whole new perspective of life in society by providing internal consistency to each individual which in turn benefits and improves community life. It is important to be aware of this connection to harmonize human bonds to acquire a deeper notion of ourselves and develop a shared, universal, collective consciousness by ensuring the stability and social peace. It also leads to reshape the human future and get out of individualistic greed which is killing us. Humanity could not reach a cogito-share resort in a universe devoid of intelligence, no matter could have been organized in a universe devoid of photons.
Relating Q issues with PH impacts directly on social phenomena. Leads to a ‘personal-social revolution’; to strengthen shared responsibility. It is the birth of a ‘humanistic collective’ which is authentic. To understand and internalize this idea would ensure collective thoughts and behaviors develop which are more human. This would deeply change our way to build knowledge, our way of building the SC and PH. The standard model does not reflect the real place of the human. In the universe we are actors-creators and not its mere observers-calculators.
Our proposal involves an epistemological-ontological revolution that attempts to solve the crisis that humanity suffers full of individualism and selfishness, which has forgotten the pursuit of spiritual, rational and universal wisdom in lieu of a materialist-deterministic model of the moment. Our proposal is intended to break the limit imposed by the classical model that has overshadowed the collective potential of the cogito. Our idea could reconstruct the social fabric by making it more sensitive; our model cannot be imposed from any philosophical or scientific community but must be understood and internalized by every human being.
We need new ideas and proposals to move towards a new humanity to develop responsibilities, shared intelligence and spirituality. We need humanity to progress towards a state of non-selfishness, non-individualism and we need a new philosophical view of the universe and of life. Thus, the PH may contribute to a new ethics proposal to remove the SC from the mercantilism of the need to sell ideas; it deteriorates and is detrimental to the same SC. This is our intention in this article.
Mental experiment ‘smart particles’
Deleuze says that man needs to develop a curiosity prepared for the unexpected. Let’s go through the inverse problem, we propose this experiment with the intention of incorporating the quantum structure of thought and place ourselves in another’s place and think about the world from there. The ability to ask and create is not rescinded; the question itself should leave us perplexed. Consider this: we have needed of certain experiments and instruments to give a level of ‘reality’ different to the one which we are used and that is verified to exist from a number of experiments. With the experiment of black body radiation we were first introduced to the quantum level. There began to appear photons. Now, let’s imagine the following: through certain equations and experiments the ‘smart particles’ discover that there is a world of ‘large objects’, those ‘large objects’ they observe separately, have a local behaviour, and by some calculations their movements can be predicted. A rare thing for ‘smart particles’; the macro level they have just discovered has a particular order. For them this is impossible, unthinkable such a world, so they become bewildered.
1) How would a ‘smart particle’, belonging to the quantum level, understand and comprehend the classical level? The particles observed in the classical level ‘things’, ‘objects’, do not interact, as they do in their own quantum world: they are all ‘stacked’, ‘cramped’, moving very fast, connected, interacting. Their ‘common sense’ is used to indeterminism.
2) How would a particle re-educate its ‘common sense’ and thus understand the classical level?
3) How would the particles produce a new logic, re-educate their intuition and create a different language to understand and to represent through images that classical level so different from their own level?
4) How would the ‘smart particles’ conceive the concept ‘object’? Since this is macroscopic and they do not handle classical words and concepts. They have to invent a new model, new language with ‘words’ to define and understand these “things / objects’ and their’ properties’.
5) How would they do to define the substance and the accidents of these objects?
6) How would they define the Being of the classic things? Surely to the ‘smart particles’ it is very difficult to understand and define words, like ‘Being’ at the classical level, perhaps because they are accustomed to use quantum symbols to define and describe their own level. Particles probably find it very difficult to understand the logic of the third excluded.
Ever since man discovered the quantum level he has asked the following questions: Is it possible to define particles as objects? How to define an object without observable properties using a classical language? How to define the substance of these ‘objects’ by classical logic and language?
The ‘smart particles’ to discover the classical level, ask the following questions: How to define and understand that, which is called ‘object’ with observable properties using quantum symbols? How to define the substance of these objects through the abstractions of quantum physics? How to describe and understand that these things called ‘objects’ have a trajectory? They cannot understand how these classical objects are in one place or another. For them it is very difficult to understand this new level because they start from a quantum bias. For them everything is quantum: their ‘structure of thought’ and their ‘common sense’ is quantum.
7) Do ‘smart particles’ have to build a new physics to understand the classical level? A new physics with a scale by which to understand the ‘objects’, ‘things’ they observe. And this new physics will have new philosophical foundations. How will their ontology be? Will ti be a quantum ontology? So, they must develop ontology for the classical level?
8) By what ‘experiment’, did the ‘smart particles’ discover the classical level? Perhaps the experiment would be the anti-analogue of black body radiation.
9) How do the ‘smart particles’ come up with an experiment and an instrument to show that at the classical level things behave as particles or waves. Their physics is quantum physics is by excellence and their ‘instruments’ are also quantum.
10) How do the particles observe the classical level through their own ‘instruments’? They must invent a classical instrument to show them a level where ‘things’ are not all interacting with each other. A tool that allows them to separate each ‘object’ from its context, allowing them to ‘see’ the ‘edge of things’. The particles must move out of their ‘quantum reality’ to discover and understand the classics. They need something to help them understand that when acting together are the effects are classical, therefore the laws cease to be probabilistic and become instead deterministic.
11) If the ‘smart particles’ achieve different physics and with it they develop concepts and invent words and classical instruments to observe and understand the classics: did they do everything, then? Would they obtain a complete theory that describes the end that represents the entire universe? Perhaps with this new physics they could acquire ‘conscience’ of collective action, to act in collaboration.
12) If all are ‘aware’ of all, in the quantum world, they should be ‘aware’ of their effects when they act together to form a solid small body or a large body such is a planet.
13) If there are not ‘aware’ of collective action: How do they group together to form visible matter together at a classical level? Do they have ‘consciousness’ in a quantum level than if they act together classic effects are produced?
14) How would the ‘smart particles’ understand that their probabilistic laws hold a world of deterministic laws? Quantum physics came about because the curves obtained in the experiments of black body radiation needed to be explained: a quantum consideration of light was done. That is, to our classical physics it raised a problem that could not, nor can be solved with concepts from classical physics. This means that for ‘smart particles’ to discover the existence of a level with deterministic laws, a problem must arise that cannot be solved by their own quantum physics.
15) What problem can arise in quantum physics of ‘smart particles’, which cannot be managed or resolved by its own physics?
16) Do they also get the measurement problem?
17) The challenge of contemporary man is to re-construct the knowledge by developing a ‘cogito complexus’, to re-build the knowledge transforming it to generic base of contemporary PH, and to conquer a generic rationality that is truly democratic dimension that develops the dimension of ‘notridad’. That is to say a wise man compromised with the world responsible for collective action and shared intelligence intertwined with the universe.
18) What is the challenge of ‘smart particles’?
Bitbol, Michel, Mécanique Quantique. Une introduction philosophique (Paris, Champs Flammarion, 1997)
Bitbol, Michel, Physique & Philosophie de l’esprit (Paris, Flammarion, 2000)
Bitbol, Michel, Théorie Quantique et Sciences Humaines (Paris, CNRS Éditions, 2009)
Bunge, Mario, Survey of the Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. (EEUU, American Journal of Physics, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp. 272-286, 1956)
Choplin, Hugues, La Non-Philosophie de François Laruelle (Paris, Kimé ISBN : 2 -84174-199-0. 2000)
Deleuze, Gilles. Guattari, Félix, Qu’est-ce que la philosophie? (Paris, Les Éditions de Minuit, 2008)
Del Bufalo, Erik, Deleuze et Laruelle. De la schizo-analyse a la non-philosophie (Paris, Kimé, 2003)
D’Espagnat, Bernard, Le Réel Voilé. Analyse des concepts quantiques (Paris, Fayard, 2003)
D’Espagnat, Bernard, Traité de Physique et de philosophie (Paris, Fayard, 2002)
Derrida, Jacques, Positions (Paris, Les Éditions de Minuit, 2007)
Goldstein, Herbert, Mecánica Clásica (Madrid, Aguilar, 1972)
Granger, Gilles Gaston, Sciences et réalité (Paris, Odile Jacob, 2001)
Gribbin, John, Le Chat de Schrödinger. Physique Quantique et Réalité (Paris, Champs Sciences, 2008)
Klein, Étienne, Il était sept fois la révolution. Albert Einstein et les Autres (Paris, Champs Sciences, 2005)
Klein, Étienne, Le facteur temps ne sonne jamais deux fois (Paris, Champs Sciences, 2007)
Laruelle, François, Introduction aux sciences génériques (Paris, Petra, 2008)
Laruelle, François, Philosophie Non-Standard. Générique, Quantique, Philo-fiction (Paris, Kimé, 2010)
Legay, Jean-Marie. Schmid, Anne-Françoise, Philosophie de l’interdisciplinarité (Paris, Petra, 2004)
Leblond, Jean-Marc Lévy. Balibar, Françoise, Quantique (Paris, Rudiments Masson, 1997)
Leblond, Jean-Marc, A quoi sert la science? (Paris, Bayard, 2008)
Omnés, Roland, Les indispensables de la mecanique quantique (Paris, Odile Jacob – sciences, 2008)
Omnés, Roland, La Révélation des lois de la nature (Paris, Odile jacob – sciences, 2008)
Omnés, Roland, Filosofía de la Ciencia Contemporánea (Barcelona, Idea Books, 2000)
Ortoli, Sven. Pharabod, Jean-Pierre, Le cantique des quantiques. Le monde existe-t-il ? (Paris, La Découverte / Poche, 2007)
Penrose, Roger, El Camino a la Realidad. Una guía completa de las leyes del universo (México, Debate, 2008)
Prigogine, Ilya, La Fin des Certitudes. Temps, chaos et les lois de la nature (Paris, Odile Jacob, 2001)
Prigogine, Ilya, Tan sólo una ilusión? (Barcelona, Tusquet, 1983)
Ramunni, Girolamo, Les Conceptions Quantiques de 1911 a 1927 (Paris, Vrin, 1981)
Schmid, Anne-Françoise, Les Sciences, les philosophies et la pensée : une affaire de justice (Paris, Kimé, 2005)
Warner, Pierre, Les Philosophies et la science (Paris, Gallimard, 2002)