The transformations of scientific thoughts in history form thermo-dynamics to evolutionism and to nonlinear science are sub-stantial. In this process the scientific view of the world, as well as the method and model of scientific abstraction and their episte-mological principles have been deeply transformed. Out of these have come, not only entirely new and valuable kinds of analytical materials and experiences, but quite new categories and ways of thinking for the investigation of epistemological and objective matters. These results not only have shaken completely the foun-dations of prior objective knowledge, but imply ways of recon-structing objectivity. For example, once the scientific model of the planets as a clock has been given up, the idea of taking the object as separate and dependent substance in time and space must also be given up. Another example: contemporary research on chaos theory as a science, recognizing nonlinear relations as more funda-mental while linear relations happen only rarely even in inorganic events, implies that it is not unimaginable that there exist no clear or absolute boundary lines between what comes from the subject and what comes from the object, and that no absolute or eternal criterion can serve to distinguish such a boundary line. These new categories and ways of thinking have provided more suitable con-ceptual frames for grasping more deeply and exactly activities, practical structures and logic. A number of present discussions are carried out against such a background.

According to the central concepts of classic mechanics, each thing has all its attributes; they belong to this object without de-pending on any observation and even any relation. The distinction between primary and secondary attributes arises from such concepts.

The theory of relativity overthrew the concept of "primary attributions", by showing that all measures, such as time, space, mass, etc., which previously had been taken as absolute, were only certain relations or relative appearances depending on the special frame of reference. This means primarily that all physical objects and their attributes are special formulations which arise and exist under determined conditions. Hence, circumstances, the frame of reference, the model of interaction, etc., perform their functions as choices focusing, filtering and constructing all from finitude to in-finitude, from the potential to the actual, and from chaos to order. Namely, they collect all manner of attributes, structures and strata of objects and turn them into one finite combination or an actual space-time event. If separated from these functions of the frame of reference, the existence of things, their innate attributions, etc., would become more potencies in Aristotle’s terms.

Obviously, only in a specific frame of reference, which appears as a specific choice-frame in cognitive activities, do there exist real relationships between man and reality. Establishing the object and formulating its attributes and essence can be done only in terms of a problem, a theoretical background and an operative system. The problem concerning whether or not our theoretical model is truthful, semantically perfect or corresponds to objects is meaningful only within the specific frame of reference.

In general, the frame of reference determines that one observer at one instance can hold only one position rather than many, that is, the observer always stays within the world. So, there can be no absolute observer, God, beyond the cosmos. This fact provides physics with some rather humanized attributes. Dialogues between us and nature could succeed only within nature.

Of course, it is only after quantum mechanics and infor-mation theory had been developed that the above ideas became clear. Further, not only has the concept of a frame of reference shown that objective reality could exist only relatively in certain specific relations, but also that the integration of the notions of operator and eigenstate in quantum mechanics has shown that the objective reality is formed out of choices with irreducible subjec-tive factors.

All previous theories of physics, including that of relativity, are theoretical expressions independent of observable means. In them all the primary concepts are physical concepts such as those of particle position as a time-function in Newtonian mechanics, and of the intensities of six split measures of the electromagnetic field in Marwell’s electromegnetics, etc. However, the concepts of quantum mechanics are completely different, which shows that all information about microcosmic objects have been achieved by means of macroscopic measures. The theoretical system of quan-tum mechanics consists in two parts: the equation of motions and the theory of observation, thereby elevating measure and obser-vation to the level of primary concepts.

According to the quantum hypothesis, each measure is a unique interplay which has caused an irreversible or sudden change of the natural state. The famous physicist, Bohr said that "each measure breaks the natural process and leads to a new primary condition, called probability convergence. This is characteristic of quantum theory."

The state of microcosmic objects changes in a number of ways. The first is constant evolution in Hilbert space which is natural but not real, the second is nonconstant changes according to the law of probability. In our measures these are real but not objective as is called for by the classic theories, nor can they be en-compassed in dynamic equations. Both ways are independent and mutually complementary; only by physical and philosophical inter-pretations are they connected. This is "the real duality" in quantum mechanics; it has nothing to do with the usually discussed duality of wave and particle, but is two models of a vector.

The apparatus used for measuring a state are designed ac-cording to the macroscopic theories, namely, the classic theories of physics and of process. As a result operations must be described in the language of classical physics and in ordinary language; at same time, we must depend upon these languages in order to understand and explain, that is, to build an audio-visual image. Both Bohr and Heisenberg stressed that the superficial duality of wave and particle came out of classic concepts with their limitations of lan-guage. Having really understood the theory of quantum neither ever dreamt of speaking of a duality of quanta.

Speaking conceptually, these characteristics appear by im-porting an operator replacing the usual physical concepts with an operator, that is, a mathematic operation as below: by putting the operator into a function there results a consequence. Under spe-cified boundary conditions, a series of possible values as the solu-tion of equations stand as eigenvalues of these equations. In general, the operator represents one sort of use and operation. This shows that the function has a series of definite values in accord with specific uses, and that, because of the effect of the operator the state of the system has undergone a sudden change. Thus the event that really happens is the result of choosings among a series of possible events. As a mixed state this actual event is a state of having expe-rienced certain interactions of the apparatus, which is to say, an eigenstate. Without such interactions, the observable phenomena would disappear completely.

At same time, since each definite appearance is connected with a definite set of operators, the micro-system has an irreducible multiplicity. An accomplishment of some possibilities has changed the structure of certain spaces as possiblities, that is, has excluded some other possibilities. Position and momentum are never changeable measures independent of each other, and the scientific world-image can never be analyzed as fundamental building-ma-terials independent of each other. According to this uncertainty principle any local actualization will cause a change of the total space-structure as possibilities.

So, what phenomena or events appear depends on our choices of measuring instruments, the question we raise and our ways of answering. Whatever has been seen is not nature itself, but nature uncovered by our ways of investigation.

Modern science seeks answers from the nature by choosing and questioning. However, according to Einstein and K. Poper, there is no one final answer and many ways to arrive at it. On the contrary, quantum mechanics has uncovered that the final answer must be formed in the answering process, according to which, there exists no definite answer in nature; any answer will be shaped by the way we choose to answer.

First, "scientific facts" are also a sort of point of view. They are not arbitrarily subjective for otherwise not only would the facts not be such, but neither would science. But subjective roles have been encompassed by scientific facts in the following ways: scien-tific facts have been gathered by our practical means, described by our language, and chosen from various kinds of phenomena. Such choices, connected to our conjectures and expectations, are con-sidered meaningful for expounding, interpreting, testing, and pre-dicting, etc. They are not only a recognition and description of cer-tain specified achievements of scientific research, but a description of the human activities themselves.

As regards concepts, laws and theories, the contributions of the subject to science are more obvious, and include the con-tributions of free thought creations and the human pursuit of unity, simplicity and aesthetics.

In general, the great contribution of quantum mechanics is that objective facts, which often are taken as independent of us and as a source for recognizing and testing criteria by common sense, are manifest finally to be one sort of eigenstate depending on the investigator’s choices and constructions. Hence, we are deeply rooted in the world which has been described by us.

In view of developments from quantum mechanics to infor-mation theory, cybernetics, systems theory and even ecology, scientists have been finding ever more clearly that science always unfolds around a human as the center, so science is only a science for humans. We are always living in a cosmos we have described; we live in a cosmos which we have described from the point of our inner world and with our own ways. As a cosmos of humans, it arises as objects as a result of human activities. The human objectifies oneself into science, stamping one’s own spirit upon the world, and expressing one’s essence in this creation. This is what K. Marx said about "the real awakening of nature, and of man" and "the finished naturalism of man and the finished humanism of nature."

In this world of participants recognition itself becomes a dialogue between humans and nature in which, according to J.A. Wheeler’s metaphor, what is central is the question. This produces the situation, state or network and leads forward the investigator and his or her objects. Thus, both subject and object lose their traditional meaning in philosophy for they are never substances independent or isolated with regard to each other, but participants in a dialogue of functions and structures distinguished by their different positions in this dialogue. They are openings each of which becomes itself in its relation to another; moreover, the dialogue proceeds through coordinations and couplings which happen in their possible spaces so that a substantial and stable structure is produced and a new possibility opens.

Naturally, a revision of J.A. Wheeler’s model is necessary: before or beyond the dialogue, both subject and object are a whole of potentials. The answer is not given a priori, but exists only in the space of possibilities. That is, not only does the subject as method have its own orientation, ways of functioning, theoretical back-ground, expectations, aims, etc., but also the object itself has its own spontaneity, independence and laws. Such relations of sub-jects and objects appear as specific structures or limits, etc.; they are possibilities to be constructed. Because of these the dialogue becomes more like "an adventure of choices", a kind of "challenge and response"; its success lies in a coupling of parts of both the subject’s and object’s spaces as possiblities.

This sense of a cosmos of participants has opened a new substantial view of physics according to which existence is a to-tality of possibilities with an infinitely complicated structure and infinite combinations. The appearance of each physical reality means that accomplishment of a possible word and a choice of actual relations. Similarly, the realization of each object in human activities is an actualization of a possible world, the relations and attributes of which are worked out only in our active research activities. This not only shows the possible modes of combinations and reconstructions that are permitted by existence itself, but also depends on the choices of the structure of human activities. It is then a coupling of both subjective and objective aspects.

Thus, the monistic world-image has escaped the limitations of classical science and become much more profound, complicated and broader. Modern scientific vision has expanded its scope rapidly, becoming ever deeper and more specialized day by day, has resulted in our knowledge disintegrating into many special departments with multiple levels and dimensions so as to appear as stereoscopic intersections. Such a multi-dimensional world-image reflects not only the fact that existence has many levels and a substantial multiplicity, but that modern scientific theories and their practical means have become pluralistic. That is, the ways of constructing the world subjectively and connecting to objects in action have become multiple. This asks us not only to admit the multiplicity of existence but, moreover, to emphasize the existence of the world’s multiple dimensions, that is, the multiplicity of a humanized reality.

The richness of humanized reality as such exists beyond any unitary language or logical structure. Particularly, since many means of working are mutually exclusive or irreducible to each other and are limited, we are not able to exhaust all truths of po-ssible worlds from only one point of view and by one method (here the importance of Bohr’s "complementary principle" can be seen).

This conclusion applies also to the spiritual products of hu-man beings. Whether science or art, each field includes objective and substantial factors, with ways to combine them in conceiving and measuring values. Thus, we find a profound and inner unifi-cation of the two cultures of human and natural science. Just as we objectify ourselves, this also is the way human subjects creatively unfold their models of activity. Such unification is not a formal result, but an original process.