The fulcrum of this work is knowledge: what it is and how it is generated within the context of a capitalist society. First, Marx’s analysis of the objective labour process is extended to the mental labour process. Then, objective and mental labour processes are defined in terms of objective and mental transformations, with consideration paid to which of the two types of transformation is determinant. This requires a discussion of dialectical logic and formal logic. Within dialectical logic, two types of (...) processes are introduced: open ended and pre-determined. It is argued that computers (both traditional and quantum) and Artificial Intelligence cannot generate new knowledge, because they (a) rely on formal logic, i.e. they cannot engage in open-ended dialectical processes, and (b) are impervious to social determination. Connectedly, Artificial Intelligence systems such as ChatGPT cannot be a substitute for human thought or writing, because of the inevitability of ‘model collapse’. Next, focus is shifted to a specific form of knowledge: the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ of quantum mechanics. It is shown that this interpretation is steeped in irrationalism and that it is a variant of pro-capitalist ideology. Finally, the social-historical roots of this ideology are revealed. (shrink)

In a recent paper (Arroyo and Arenhart in Found Sci 28:885–910, 2013) Arroyo and Arenhart presented a detailed critical analysis regarding some essential aspects of representational realism and the logos approach to Quantum Mechanics (QM) addressed in terms of (i) “a diagnosis of what is wrong with currently available solutions”; (ii) “a proposal of a new methodology for addressing the problem”; and finally, (iii) “a positive proposal to answer the question, which is arrived at by following the methodology suggested.” In (...) this work we provide a detailed reply to some deep misunderstandings that arise in this presentation due to Arroyo and Arenhart which, in turn, allows them to conclude that “contrarily to what de Ronde has suggested, his proposal is not a way to avoid commitment to uncritical images of reality, but rather, one further position in the already huge cart of options of quantum mechanics.” After providing a more accurate account of our diagnosis, we continue to address our methodology which—like that of Einstein, Heisenberg, Pauli and Schrödinger—goes back to the Greek-Modern account of physics. We then present our proposal grounded on the invariant-objective search for theoretical unity and discuss why intensive powers of action cannot be considered in dispositional or teleological terms with respect to actuality. Finally, we list some of the main results already accomplished by the logos approach and discuss the essential role of ‘intuition’ and ‘understanding’ within the realist setting. (shrink)