**Centro de Filosofia das Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa (CFCUL)**

**Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa (CFUL) - Linha de Pensamento Fenomenológico**

**Scientific board**

José Croca

Pedro Alves

Rui Moreira

**Call for Papers**

For understanding Nature, modern science has turned to mathematical and
physical models that dramatically simplified the complexity of natural
phenomena and processes. This was the very key for its long-lasting
success. Nevertheless, as Husserl wrote regarding
Galileo, this move was simultaneously a discovering and a concealing
one. In a sense, the modern understanding of Nature was caught in
mathematical formulae. Galileo's geometrization of Physics, and then the
grow of analytical and linear methods in mathematical
techniques, set the stage where Nature should be addressed from now on:
a realm of idealized material essences, like mass points, perfect
trajectories, exact positions, and so on, suitable for mathematical
formalisms. However, the development of this realm
was more and more oblivious of the original sense of Nature, and of the
pieces of creative thinking that originally instituted all
these idealized essences where modern Physics found out its objects.
Locked-up in a realm consisting of material and formal essences,
developing a more and more blind manipulation of symbols in formulae
and calculations, Physics could now dream of an exact Nature as the
simple correlate of this mathematical science of Nature. As a result, at
least since the scientific revolution of the 17th
century till the beginning of the last century, Physics will assume the
perfect absolute localization in time and space, the identity, and the
separability of all physical systems.

Now, at the beginning of our century, a kind of counter-reaction is
emerging, due to the severe changes that the 20th century brought to
classical Physics. What was really new in the science of Nature in the
last century was but forth by Quantum Physics. It
is no longer a classical theory, while Relativity continues to be to a
certain extent classical, and can be viewed as the culminating point
of Mechanics (reframing Newton’s gravitation law) and
Electromagnetism (without the ether-hypothesis). Classical
Mechanics, Relativity and Electromagnetism conveyed a clear and
unambiguous ontology, respectively centered on the concepts of mass,
distributed over space and time, of field, as an extended, non-punctual
reality, and of space-time “curvature”, in its interactions
with the stress-energy tensor. The mathematical formalisms they
developed prompted by themselves, as their correlates, a clear
conception of what the (exact) physical reality should be in and by
itself.

The other way around, Quantum Mechanics developed a mathematical
formalism which was largely undecided about the very nature of the
entities to which it referred. This problem plagued Quantum Mechanics
since its very beginnings, and still continues today.
In addition, there are many other difficult aspects of Quantum Physics
regarding both the depiction of the physical reality, and what should be
accounted for as “physical”. Thus, concerning Quantum Mechanics, we
are not in a somewhat Kantian situation. We
have not a full-fledged, uncontroversial “fact of science” with its
fixed ontology. In its place, we have an accurate mathematical formalism
(perhaps, the most accurate science has ever created), and a
problem regarding its ontological interpretation in order
to characterize what is “physical”. The modern philosophy of Nature was
written in mathematical formulae; now, with Quantum Physics, the
mathematical formalism only promises a philosophy of Nature.

Quantum Mechanics is, thus, the opportunity to return to a renewed
debate about Nature itself. By virtue of its baffling results, the
classical constraints have felt-down. Every new approach to understand
Reality must assume that physical beings are complex
and have both properties of localization and non-localization, that
physical entities share a certain degree of individuality and, at the
same time, some degree of non-separability, and also that determinism
and indeterminism are only extreme ideal boundaries
in between of which physical beings generate and evolve.

So, the colloquium will be led by a twofold interest. On the one hand,
in a kind of retrospective, historical reflection, it will try to shed
light on the original insights that constituted modern Physics. On the
other hand, looking forward, it will address
the problems a new understanding of Nature imposes on us in the
quantum, post-classical age of Physics.

So, we will question:

**What has phýsis become in light of Quantum Physics?**

**What was phýsis for the Physics of modernity?**

**How do these accounts of phýsis relate to the sense of Nature that opens the field in which, afterwards, the physicist enters as a methodical researcher?**

**
**

**We invite papers on any topic or question related to these issues.**

Submissions should be in the form of an extended abstract of no more than 1000 words, anonymized for blind review.

**
**

**Abstracts should be submitted by Sunday 31st July 2017, to colloquium.**philosophyphysics@gmail.com .

We hope to have decisions on all submitted abstracts by end-August.

Working languages: English (recommended), French, and Portuguese.

*poster*: