论意识对意识的不可否认性：为什么物理学家广泛同意他们的专业知识的保证程度，而不是哲学家？与卡尔·弗里德里希·冯·魏茨泽克的书信往来
On the Unfathomableness of Consciousness by Consciousness: Why do physicists widely agree on the assured extent of their professional knowledge, but not so philosophers? An exchange of letters with Carl Friedrich von Weizsaecker
摘要：
在卡尔·弗里德里希·冯·魏茨泽克81岁生日之际，1993年7月3日举行了一次座谈会。其中一个主题是“从康德到冯·魏茨泽克的物理学认识论基础”。我参加了讨论。后来我得到的印象是，我没有成功地把我的观点说清楚。因此，我给冯·魏茨泽克教授写了一封解释信。这是一封关于上述标题所暗示的问题的信件的开始。此外，冯·魏茨泽克教授和我进行了一次私人讨论。一些读者可能会对卡尔·弗里德里希·冯·魏茨泽克对一个只受过基本哲学教育的物理学家的天真问题和观点所作的回答感兴趣。我们讨论的出发点是我的一句话，即哲学家们显然无法就人类存在的最深层次的因素（包括伦理学的基本问题）达成一致，这相当于出现了不同的哲学流派相互竞争，这也许可以追溯到人类根本无法获得自我认识。另一方面，物理学家可以以同样令人瞩目的方式，就他们的测量结果以及这些结果是否与理论思想相一致达成一致。他们只需要处理延伸问题。在这里，尺度并不打算衡量它自己，而是衡量它外部的对象，这是可能的。现在唯一的问题是，这种认识会产生什么后果。哲学就其对人类存在的总体性所作的陈述而言，是否仅仅是对占主导地位的社会环境和观点的一种表达，就其本身而言是足够有趣的，而不是通向真理的一条道路呢？
英文摘要：
On the occasion of Carl Friedrich von Weizsaecker's 81st birthday, a colloquium was held on July 3, 1993. One of the topics was "The epistemological foundation of physics from Kant to von Weizsaecker". I took part in the discussion. Afterwards I got the impression that I had not succeeded in making my points clear. Therefore, I wrote an explanatory letter to Prof. von Weizsaecker. This was the beginning of a correspondence on the questions intimated by the title above. In addition, a private discussion between Prof. von Weizsaecker and myself took place. Some readers may be interested in the answers which Carl Friedrich von Weizsaecker has given to the naive questions and views of a physicist with only a rudimentary education in philosophy. The starting point of our discussion was my remark that the conspicuous inability of philosophers to agree on the deepest elements of human existence including the basic questions of ethics, which is tantamount to the occurrence of different schools of philosophy competing with each other, could perhaps be traced back to the fundamental inability of man to attain self-knowledge. Physicists, on the other hand, can reach consent, in an equally remarkable way, on the results of their measurements and on whether or not these results agree with the ideas of theory. They just have to deal with res extensa. Here the yardstick does not intend to measure itself, but objects which are external to it, and this is possible. There remains only the question what consequences can be drawn from this realization. Is philosophy, in as much as it gives statements on the totality of human existence, only an expression of the prevailing social circumstances and views, interesting enough as such, but not a gateway to truth?
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
