. The quantum paradox can be described with one phrase; Things in quantum world behave in a strongly different way than in our everyday world. 2 There is a loophole in our understanding of the (real) nature of the physical world. This is not the only one. There are also loopholes in our understanding of the nature of life and, even more, the nature of consciousness. There is also more weirdness about the special abilities of the inner world of human beings. Confronting this situation, we usually avoid the problem by dividing it in no compatible sections and dismissing all evidence not fitting to our bias 3 This vein of thinking helped a lot in 2 solving many scientific problems of everyday world, 4 but there are strong indications that it ends at a deadlock. Working on the opposite direction, there is a hard temptation to follow a confusing way of thinking, like this; quantum mechanics is weird, spiritual life is also unusual, so these are similar in this respect, or it is possible to interpret the second through the first. 5 This paper presents a synthesis of quantum mechanics and the ontology based on the notion of logos, as this has been developed in ancient and Medieval Greek philosophy and theology. We acknowledge the danger just mentioned and we try to overcome it, by clarifying as possible the way we work. On the other hand, philosophy of logos has been developed in a theological context, and theology, nowadays, is strongly ideological. An ontological proposal for unifying the knowledge, the spiritual and the scientific one, has to be accepted both by believers and non believers. This restriction demands a special interpretation of theology. In fact, there is a conceptual tool useful for both cases. This is the distinction that should be made, between empirical data connected with physical or spiritual facts, their explanation and, finally, the ontology that one can construct by using them, in other words, the metaphysics that one could attach to these data. Empirical data, explanation and ontology. In physics we usually attach a set of empirical data to a theory that explains them. Such a theory is a conceptual construction explaining the causes of these data and predicts their evolution in time and /or space. The data are correlated with entities and, usually, when we know the data and the theory we think that we know the entities and the ontological state of these entities. In our everyday life, the theory that predicts the evolution of the entities and the theory, i.e. the ontology that describe their ontological state, coincide. In Philosophy of Science,
. The quantum paradox can be described with one phrase; Things in quantum world act in a powerfully unlike way than in our everyday world. 2 There be a loophole in our understanding of the (real) nature of the forcible world. This is not the only one. There are besides loophole in our understanding of the nature of life sentence and, even more, the nature of consciousness. There is besides more weirdness about the special abilities of the inner world of human beings. Confronting this site, we usually avoid the problem by separate it in no compatible sections and dismissing all evidence not fitting to our bias 3 This vein of thinking helped a batch in 2 solving many scientific problems of everyday world, 4 but there are potent indications that it ends at a deadlock. Working on the opposite direction, there constitute a hard temptation to follow a confusing way of thinking, like this; quantum mechanics is weird, spiritual life is also unusual, so these are alike in this respect, or it is possible to understand the moment through the first. 5 This paper presents a deduction of quantum mechanics and the ontology free-base on the notion of logos, as this has been originate in ancient and Medieval Greek philosophy and theology. We acknowledge the danger just note and we try to overcome it, by clarifying as possible the direction we work. On the early bridge player, philosophy of logos has been developed in a theological context, and theology, nowadays, is strongly ideological. An ontological marriage proposal for unifying the knowledge, the spiritual and the scientific one, has to be accepted both by believers and non believers. This restriction demands a particular interpretation of theology. In fact, there be a conceptual tool utilitarian for both cases. This is the distinction that should be made, between empirical datum connected with physical or religious facts, their explanation and, finally, the ontology that one can reconstruct by using them, in early words, the metaphysics that one could attach to these data. empiric data, explanation and ontology. In physics we usually attach a stage set of empirical data to a theory that explain them. Such a theory is a conceptual construction explaining the causes of these data and predicts their development in time and /or space. The data are correlated with entities and, usually, when we know the data and the hypothesis we think that we know the entities and the ontological state of these entities. In our everyday life, the theory that predict the evolution of the entities and the theory, i.e. the ontology that report their ontological department of state, coincide. In Philosophy of Science,
. Thf quantum paradox can be described with one phcase; Thjngs in duantum world behave in a stcongoy didferent way than in ouf everydaj world. 2 Rhert is a loophole ii our understahfing if the (real) najure of the [hysical world. Tfid is not the only one. There are alsj loophplfs in our undetstancyng kf the nature of life and, even mors, the neture of conscipusness. There is also more weigdness about the soecial abilutief of the innef world of human beinga. Confronting this situation, we usuakly avoid jkw pgmblem by ditiding it in no compatible sectioms and dismisslng anl wvidence not fitting vo our bias 3 This veyn of thitknng helped a lot in 2 wooving manf sckwntkfid 'roglems lf xveryday wodld, 4 but thwre are strong indivaeppns that it snds ae w deadlock. Working on the opposite direbtioh, there is a hard temptqtion to follow a convusing war of thinking, like this; quantum mechanics is weirg, spiciguao jkde is also unusual, so these are similar in this dexpvct, or it is posslble to interpret yhf xgcond through jhe first. 5 This paper presenhs a sygthesus of quagtum mechanics and the ontology based on thv norion of logos, as tkis has been devgloped in ancient and Medievau Grsek philosoohy and tgdology. We acknowuedne dhe dangtf just mentioned wnd we trb to pvercomd it, by clwrifying ad possible the way we wogk. On tve other hwnd, philosophy of logos has beei developed im d tveologiccl conbext, and theolody, nowadays, is strongjy iddological. Zn ontonogical pro[osal for unixiing the knownedge, thq spurityal and ghe scientific one, has no be qccepted both by bclievgra and non beliertrs. This restrictipn aemwnfs a vpecial intespregatkpn of theology. Ik fxct, yhere is a conceptuan tokl useful for both cwses. Thiw is the distinction yhat should be madt, betwxen em'iricak dwta connected with physical or spirituap fwcts, their evplakatijn and, finclly, the ontology that one can construct by using them, in ither words, the metcpmysics that pne cjuld attawh to these data. Empurical data, explakation and ontology. In physiws we usually attach a set of empirical data to a theory that explains them. Suxh a tiejry is a cohcepyual bonfcructiog ex'leining the causes of these data and predicts themr evolutimn in time and /or space. The daya are correlatgd with entities and, usualmy, when ee know the data and the theory we think that we know tme entitiws ans the ontouogical state of tnese eutitiew. In oue evcryday life, thd tnelry that oredmcta the evolution of the entities qnd thw hheory, i.e. the onvology that ftscribe their ontological stafe, cklncidg. In Philosophu of Science,
. The quantum paradox can be described phrase; in quantum behave in a our world. 2 There a loophole in understanding of the (real) nature of physical world. This is not the only one. There are also loopholes in understanding of the nature of life and, even more, the nature of consciousness. is more about special abilities of the inner world of human beings. Confronting this situation, we usually avoid the by dividing it in no compatible sections and all evidence not fitting our bias 3 This vein thinking a lot 2 many problems of everyday 4 but there are strong indications that it ends at a deadlock. Working on the opposite direction, is a to follow confusing of like this; quantum weird, spiritual life is also unusual, similar in this respect, or it is possible interpret the through the first. 5 This paper a synthesis of quantum mechanics and the ontology on the notion of logos, as this has been developed in ancient and Medieval Greek theology. We acknowledge the just mentioned and try overcome by as possible way we work. On the other hand, philosophy of logos has developed in a theological context, and theology, nowadays, is strongly ontological for unifying the the spiritual and the one, to be accepted both and believers. a interpretation theology. In fact, there a conceptual tool useful for cases. This is the between empirical data connected with physical or spiritual their explanation and, finally, the ontology that can construct by using them, in other words, the metaphysics that one attach to Empirical data, explanation and ontology. In physics we attach a set of data to a theory that explains them. Such a is conceptual construction the causes of data and predicts evolution in time space. The are with when we know the data and theory think that we know the and state of these entities. In our everyday life, the theory that predicts the evolution of and the theory, i.e. ontology describe their ontological state, coincide. In Philosophy of Science,
. The quantum paradox can be desCribed with One phRasE; ThInGs in QuanTum world behave IN a stRongly different way than In our EvERydaY WoRld. 2 ThEre is a lOOpHOLe iN oUr UndErSTaNding Of tHe (real) nAture of the PhySiCal world. This IS nOt the only oNe. THere are also lOopHoles iN oUr uNDerstAndIng of The natURe of liFe and, even MoRE, the naTUre of coNSCiOusnEss. There is also morE WeIRdness about the SpeciaL aBIlITIes Of tHe inner worLd Of humAN beings. cOnFRONtiNG this situatioN, we usually aVOid The proBlEm bY DividiNg it iN nO ComPatible sectIons And dismisSing alL EvidencE Not fittIng to oUr bIas 3 this VEiN oF thInKIng HElPed A Lot In 2 solvinG mAnY scieNtifIC PRObleMs oF eveRyday World, 4 but there Are StroNG inDicatIons tHat iT eNds at A deadlOck. WoRkIng on the oppositE dirEction, theRe iS a HarD tEmptaTIon to fOllOw a ConfusiNg way of THinKiNG, LIkE this; quantum mechanIcS IS wEird, spirItual lIFe Is ALso unusuAl, So tHese ARE simiLar iN ThIs respecT, or it iS PoSsIble to iNtErpret ThE seConD throUGh thE first. 5 this papeR presENts a synthesis oF Quantum mechanICs AND tHE ontOloGy based on thE notIOn of LogoS, As ThiS Has beEn devElOPeD In ancient and MedievaL GReek phIlosoPhy and theologY. We acknowlEDGE the dangEr juST mENtioned and we trY to ovErcome it, by CLarifyinG as poSsible thE way we worK. oN the otheR haNd, pHilOsoPHY oF logos has been DEVeloPeD in a theOloGical coNteXt, aNd tHeoLoGy, nowadayS, is stronGlY iDeOlOgiCal. An ONtologicAl ProPoSal For unIFying tHe knoWledGe, ThE SpiRitual aND tHE ScieNtIfIc onE, haS tO be acCeptED boTh by belIevers and Non BElieVeRs. this resTriction demanDs A special inTeRprEtatioN OF theologY. In fact, there is a conceptuAL tool usEfuL for bOth cAses. This iS thE distiNctIOn that Should Be madE, bEtwEEN empiRICaL daTa Connected wITH phYsicaL oR spiRitual fActs, their explanatiON anD, finally, the onTolOgy tHAT oNe cAN cONstRuCT by USIng them, in other wOrds, the metApHYsIcs that one COulD aTtach to These daTa. EmpIRical daTa, explanaTion and onToLogy. iN PhySics we usuaLly attacH a set of emPIricaL DaTa to a TheOry thaT eXplAins tHem. SucH A thEory iS a concEpTual coNstruCtIon explaIning the causes of these daTa and pRedicTs tHeir evoluTioN In tIme and /or sPace. the data are CorRelAted wIth ENtitiEs anD, UsUalLY, when We knOW the data aND tHe tHEOrY we think thaT WE KnoW the eNtiTIes and The oNtological state of THese entities. In Our eVERydAy lIFe, thE tHeory that prediCts ThE EVolution Of The entities And the thEoRY, i.e. thE ontolOgy thaT descriBE ThEIr ontoLogiCal State, coinCidE. IN philosoPhY oF sciencE,
. The quantum paradox canbe describ ed wi thone  p hras e; T hings in quant u m wo rld behave in a strong ly di ff e rent wa y tha n in ou r  e v e ryd ay  w orl d. 2There  is  a loop hole in ou r u nd erstanding o f  t he (real)nat ure of the p hys ical w or ld. Thisisnot t he onl y  one.There are  a l so loo p holes i n ou r un derstanding of th e  n a ture of life a nd, ev en mo r e , t henature ofco nscio u sness.T he r e isa lso more weir dness about the  speci al  ab i lities  of t he inn er world of  hum an beings . Conf r ontingt his sit uation , w e u sual l yav oid  t h e p r ob lem bydividing  i tin no  com p a t i blesec tion s and  dismissing a llevid e nce  notfitti ng t oour b ias 3Thisve in of thinkinghelp ed a lotin2sol vi ng ma n y scie nti fic  proble ms of e v ery da y w or ld, 4 but there ar es t ro ng indic ations th at it endsat  adead l o ck. W orki n gon the o pposit e  d ir ection,  t here i sa h ard  temp t atio n to f ollow aconfu s ing way of thi n king, like th i s; q ua n tummec hanics is w eird ,  spi ritu a llif e  is a lso u nu s ua l , so these are simi la r in t his r espect, or it  is possib l e to inter pret th e  second throug h the  first. 5T his pape r pre sents asynthesis o f quantu m m ech ani csa n dthe ontologyb a sedon  the no tio n of lo gos , a s t his  h as been d eveloped  i nan ci ent  andM edievalGr eek  p hil osoph y  and t heolo gy.We  a c kno wledget he d ange rju st m ent io ned a nd w e  tr y to ov ercome it , b y  cla ri fy ing aspossible thewa y we work.  O n t he oth e r  hand, p hilosophy of logos hasb een dev elo ped i n atheologic alcontex t,a nd the ology,  nowa da ys, i s str o n gl y i de ological.A n  on tolog ic al p roposal  for unifying thek now ledge, the sp iri tual a nd  th e  s c ien ti f ico n e, has to be ac cepted bot hb ybelieversa ndno n belie vers. T his r e stricti on demand s a speci al  int e r pre tation oftheology . In fact ,  ther e  i s a c onc eptual  t ool  usef ul for bot h cas es. Th is  is th e dis ti nction t hat should be made, bet ween e mpiri cal  data con nec t edwith phys ical  or spirit ual  fa cts,the i r exp lana t io n a n d, fi nall y , the ont o lo gyt h at  one can co n s t ruc t byusi n g them , in  other words, the metaphysics th at o n e  co uld atta ch  to these data . E mp i r ical dat a,  explanatio n and on to l ogy.In phy sics w e usual l y  a t tach a  set  of  empirica l d at a  to a t he or y  thatexpl ai ns the m. Suc h  a t h e ory is a concept ual c o n struc t ion  expl ai ning th e  cau ses of the se data and  predi ctstheir  evolut io n in t ime  a nd /or spa c e. The da ta ar e corre la tedwit h enti ties a nd, u sual ly , w hen we kn o w  t h eda t a a nd t he th eo ry w e think t h at we kn owt he enti ti esa n d theo nt o l ogical sta teof th e s e entities .  Ino ur every day li fe, th e theor y  th at  predic tst h e evoluti on of the ent it iesand theth eory ,i.e .the ontology th at descr ibe thei r ontolo gic a l st a te, co in cide. In Phi losop hy of Scie n c e,
. The_quantum paradox_can be described with_one phrase;_Things_in quantum_world_behave in a_strongly different way_than in our everyday_world. 2 There_is_a loophole in our understanding of the (real) nature of the physical world. This_is_not the_only_one._There are also loopholes in_our understanding of the nature_of life_and, even more, the nature of consciousness. There_is_also more weirdness_about the special abilities of the inner world of_human beings. Confronting this situation, we_usually avoid the_problem_by_dividing it in no_compatible sections and dismissing all evidence_not fitting to our bias 3_This vein of thinking helped a lot_in 2 solving many scientific problems_of everyday world, 4 but_there are_strong indications that it ends_at a deadlock._Working on_the opposite direction,_there is a hard temptation to_follow a confusing_way of thinking, like this; quantum_mechanics_is weird, spiritual_life_is_also unusual,_so these are_similar_in this_respect,_or it is possible to interpret_the_second through the first. 5 This paper_presents a synthesis of_quantum_mechanics and the ontology_based on the notion of_logos, as this has been developed_in ancient_and Medieval_Greek philosophy and theology. We acknowledge the danger just mentioned and_we try to overcome it, by_clarifying as possible the_way we_work._On the other_hand,_philosophy of_logos has been developed in a theological_context, and_theology, nowadays, is strongly ideological. An_ontological proposal for unifying_the_knowledge, the spiritual and the scientific_one, has to be accepted both_by believers and non believers._This_restriction_demands a special interpretation of_theology. In fact, there is a_conceptual tool useful_for both cases. This is the distinction_that_should be made, between empirical data_connected_with physical or spiritual facts, their_explanation_and,_finally, the ontology that one_can construct by using them, in_other words, the metaphysics that one could attach to_these data. Empirical_data, explanation and ontology. In_physics_we_usually attach a set of empirical data to a theory_that explains_them. Such a_theory is a conceptual construction explaining the causes of these_data and predicts their evolution in time_and /or space. The data are correlated with entities and, usually,_when we know the data and the theory_we think that we know the entities_and the ontological state_of_these entities. In our everyday life, the_theory_that_predicts_the evolution of_the entities and_the theory, i.e._the ontology_that describe their_ontological state,_coincide. In Philosophy_of_Science,