An excellent, deep essay, the ideas of which are aimed at overcoming the modern conceptual - paradigmatic crisis of the metaphysical / ontological basis of fundamental science, manifesting itself as a "crisis of understanding" (J. Horgan "The End of Science", Kopeikin K.V. "Souls" of atoms and "atoms" of the soul : Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and "three great problems of physics"), "crisis of interpretation and representation" (Romanovskaya T.B. "Modern physics and contemporary art - parallels of style" ), "loss of certainty" (Kline M . "Mathematics: Loss of Certainty"), "trouble with physics" (Lee Smolin "Trouble with Physics").
Therefore, I agree with these important conclusions:
<<It is my contention that, to safeguard the creative flexibility of human thought and consider modern science, it is essential at this moment in history to methodically and critically reflect upon and clarify the metaphysical underpinnings of modern science, and sympathetically metaphysical views—both western and non-western—in light of the products of modern science and its open questions.>>
<<I believe that science as we know it must undergo a thorough-going transformation which reconnects it with the reflective and contemplative modes of being, both at the level of the individual scientist and at the level of the intellectual disciplines that exemplify these modes of being.>>
Disagree with this conclusion:
<<As mentioned earlier, a major open task in physics since the creation of quantum mechanics is the construction of a conception of reality that does justice to the mathematical formalism of these theories. To my mind, it is essential that such a conception—a quantum conception of reality—be constructed, so that scientists may be in possession of a richly detailed alternative to mechanical conception, based on our most powerful physical theory.>>
Quantum theory, theory of relativity - phenomenological theories (parametric, operationalistic, "effective") theories without ontological justification / substantiation (ontological basification). The problem with the ontological foundation of mathematics also remains unresolved. Physicists and mathematicians have only one alternative - the holistic paradigm, which should come to the aid of the "paradigm of the part" (mechanistic), which is now dominant in science. And this means, first to build a metaphysical / ontological basis of knowledge (ontological framework, carcass, foundation), taking into account the entire development of science and philosophy over the entire period and taking into account all the problems in the foundations, and then to build an "super-generalizing" theory based on the paradigm of the Universe as the eternal holistic process of generating more and more new meanings, forms and structures (material and ideal). The idea of constructing such a theory was proposed by the mathematician and philosopher V. Nalimov (1996) - "a super-unified field theory describing both physical and semantic manifestations of the World." ("The Self-Aware Universe")
This requires a new look at matter.
In the same direction, the ideas of the Nobel laureate in physics Brian Josephson (which are not very noticed by mainstream science), set forth in the essay "On the Fundamentality of Meaning"
I fully agree with this conclusion:
<<Human society is at a uniquely perilous moment. ... As such, scientists are in a unique position to guide humanity through what awaits it in the coming centuries. A science that is more integrated, more balanced, more enlightened, will be a better, wiser, guide.>>
Humanity continues to rapidly fall into the future. And therefore, the philosophical precepts of John A. Wheeler, "unsung paragon of science" are very important for scientists:
"Philosophy is too important to be left to philosophers."
"We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself."
"To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an utterly simple idea. And to me that idea, when we discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, that we will say to one another, 'Oh, how beautiful. How could it have been otherwise?'"
And for this, the Big Ontological revolution is needed in the foundations of knowledge. Physics must move from the stage "Phenomenological physics" to the stage "Ontological physics".
A.N. Whitehead: “A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge.”