The Research Centre of the Oriental Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences at Academia Sinica in Taiwan (RCT) was established on December 3, 2015. It is designed to act as a branch office of the Oriental Institute of the CAS and is intended to serve as a platform facilitating and strengthening academic exchanges between Czech and Taiwanese scholars as well as institutions. The Centre is a part of a long-term interdisciplinary research project entitled Power and Strategies of Social and Political Order. Czech research fellows are expected to participate in conferences and hold colloqiums with their Taiwanese colleagues. In cooperation with the Academia Sinica, the Institute plans to organize annual joint workshops and publish their proceedings. It will concomitantly continue building the network of patner institutions and thus create a solid foundation for further scholarly exchanges. In cooperation with Charles University in Prague it will also support doctoral students wishing to conduct research at the Centre. and Táňa Dluhošová.
Příspěvek se zaměřuje na zavádějící příběh o tzv. kodaňské interpretaci kvantové mechaniky, již jako údajně nerozpornou či jednotnou vytvořili a sdíleli na základě tzv. kodaňského ducha kvantové teorie její tvůrci v roce 1927. Článek bude vycházet z role, kterou v tomto příběhu sehráli především dva významní fyzikové N. Bohra W. Heisenberg. První část příspěvku seznamuje s variacemi toho, co se v literatuře považuje za kodaňskou interpretaci. Druhá část odhaluje, že zatímco kvantová mechanika vznikla ve dvacátých letech 20. století, kodaňská interpretace je veskrze problematickým a především Heisenbergovým produktem z let padesátých. Jednou z hlavních motivací, kvůli níž vystoupil s tzv. kodaňskou interpretací, byla obrana vůči množícím se kritikám obhájců kvantové teorie. Jelikož mezi členy tzv. kodaňské školy nepanovala žádná jednotná či nerozporná interpretace kvantové mechaniky, zaměřuje se poslední část příspěvku na několik vybraných rozdílů hlavně mezi Bohrovým a Heisenbergovým výkladem kvantové teorie., The article focuses on the misleading story of the so-called Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The interpretation was allegedly created as unitary or consistent and shared by its founders in 1927 by virtue of the so-called Copenhagen spirit of quantum theory. The paper is based on the role which two leading figures, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, played in this story. The first part of the article introduces variations of what is considered to be Copenhagen interpretation. The second part reveals that while quantum mechanics had originated in the 1920s, the Copenhagen interpretation was mainly a problematic Heisenberg’s product of the 1950s. One of his main motivations for the introduction of Copenhagen interpretation was to set up a defence against increasing criticism of the supporters of quantum theory. Since there was no unitary or consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics among members of the so-called Copenhagen school, the last part of the paper focuses on several differences primarily between Bohr and Heisenberg’s interpretation., Filip Grygar., and Obsahuje bibliografii
This article summarises the underlying points of Whitehead´s first systematic critique of the "materialistic" theory, which dominate modern scientific reasoning, as well as the philosophical motivation of his criticism of modern epistemology that originated as a result of a specific link towards science. Together with an outline of Whitehead´s critique, this study offers a number of illustrative quotes from the works of thinkers against whom Whitehead delineated his own philosophy sicne his own texts do not systematically come to terms with primary literature. In conclusion, this study sketches out the key traits of Whitehead´s own positon representantive of the particular phase of his thinking under scrutiny., Michal Andrle., and Obsahuje seznam literatury