In this essay, I review the importance of languages in the study of reality, following the well-known aphorisms by Galilei, Bohr and many others. The emphasis on these aspects helps us to understand that it is not meaningful to ask if the reality if "digital" or "analog", but we have to search what is the best language to study some specific aspects of the reality. This problem is particularly felt in the case of frontier science, like quantum gravity, where, in front of several theories (syntaxes) available, there are presently neither observations nor experiments leading to the building of a convincing semantics. You will not find here recipes for a definitive theory. Just thoughts and questions.
In this essay, I review the importance of languages in the study of reality, following the well-known aphorisms by Galilei, Bohr and many others. The emphasis on these aspects helps us to understand that it is not meaningful to ask if the reality if "digital" or "analog", but we have to search what is the best language to study some specific aspects of the reality. This problem is particularly felt in the case of frontier science, like quantum gravity, where, in front of several theories (syntaxes) available, there are presently neither observations nor experiments leading to the building of a convincing semantics. You will not find here recipes for a definitive theory. Just thoughts and questions.
Today, many concepts from the dictionaries of academic psychology have entered the language of everyday communication. Perhaps the most common are the concepts of «subjective» and «objective». In many textbooks of psychology, «objective» is understood as something that belongs to the object itself, something that does not depend on the subject. The objective is opposed to the subjective-personal. Experimental research in the field of quantum physics questioned the division of the world into an impartial «objective reality» and its «subjective» (not impartial, biased) reflection, which provoked a crisis in this field of knowledge and the methodology of science as a whole. The main methodological problems of psychology are the question of the place of the mental in nature; on the relationship of mental and material phenomena, on the possibilities of human cognition - questions that also arose in the depths of quantum physics and were predetermined by the internal logic of their development. An excursion into quantum physics was necessary, firstly, for a deep understanding that reality is given to us in our sensations, perceptions, ideas and mental constructs (this was evidenced by the so-called «double slit experiment» and its interpretations) and we cannot say anything about reality as it is «in itself»; secondly, the realization that the foundations on which our knowledge is built differ from those in quantum physics. Currently, there is a dichotomy between material (physical) and conceptual reality. Thus, the principle of locality, which professes ordinary consciousness and according to which specific objects occupy a specific place in time and space, contradicts the principle of non-locality, according to which isolated systems do not exist at all and every particle of the universe is in «instantaneous» communication with all other particles. The world is created from the same quantum substance and it is impossible to say that one is the cause of the other. (This statement implies, in particular, a rethinking of the «principle of determinism» which requires the establishment of unambiguous causal relationships). The reality in which we live is not quantum, our language and stereotypes of thinking do not correspond to the nature of the phenomena described by quantum physics. It is about the deep properties of matter. Personally, I got the impression that the deeper you plunge into the world of atomic and subatomic, the more the outlines of the specific, material world familiar to us become blurred and the thinner the line between the physical and conceptual world, between the material and the spiritual becomes. The purpose of this article is to define the concepts of "objective" and "subjective" based on the analysis of achievements in quantum physics in the context of psychology.
There are two languages in which we speak about what it means to be. The first is the language of physics. It speaks of wave functions and probability amplitudes, of coherence and decoherence, of superposition and collapse. It describes the world from outside — as an object to be measured, predicted, controlled. In this language, the brain is an electrochemical system, neurons are signal processors, and consciousness is either an emergent property or an illusion to be explained away. The second is the language of experience. It speaks of pain and joy, of fear and love, of the redness of red and the taste of morning coffee. It describes the world from inside — as something lived, felt, undergone. In this language, the brain is not experienced at all. What is experienced is: being here, in this moment, as this self. For four hundred years, since Descartes split mind from matter, we have assumed these languages describe different things. The physical and the mental. The objective and the subjective. The measurable and the ineffable. This book argues that assumption is wrong. The two languages describe the same thing. Not two things that mysteriously interact. Not two aspects that somehow correlate. The same thing — seen from different angles. This is not a metaphor. It is not an analogy. It is not a poetic gesture toward unity. It is a claim about the structure of reality.
The concept of "reality" is often raised in the context of philosophical foundations of physics or interpretations of quantum mechanics. When this term is so raised, it is a warning to me that I am about to be led down a rabbit hole. Such diversions usually lead nowhere unless you consider endless discussions of Schrodinger's cat, wave function collapse, quantum non-locality, and parallel universes to be useful. A prime example is the famous Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen paper wherein they concluded that the quantum wave function cannot provide a complete description of physical reality. In this essay I suggest that, in physics discourse, the term "reality" should be avoided at all costs.
If you ask Google to search for “no quantum world,” you will get nearly 300 hits. They all give the following quotation (or recognizable corruptions of it): There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature. Over 90% of them attribute the statement to Niels Bohr, with phrases like “Bohr's dictum …,” “Bohr insisted that …,” “Bohr proclaimed …,” “Niels Bohr said, in a frequently quoted passage …,” “Niels Bohr wrote [my emphasis] …,” and even “Explain and evaluate Bohr's philosophy of quantum theory with reference to his assertion ….” Here is yet another example of the power of the internet to enrich our knowledge. There is only one problem. Bohr, who took writing very seriously indeed, never published such an assertion in any of his writings, although he repeatedly refined, reformulated, and often simply repeated his position on the philosophical foundations of the quantum theory. The statement actually comes from an essay by Aage Petersen, “The Philosophy of Niels Bohr” [1], which he published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists shortly after Bohr's death. Petersen introduced the words with When asked whether the algorithm of quantum mechanics could be considered as somehow mirroring an underlying quantum world, Bohr would answer … So what may now be the most celebrated of all Bohr quotations on the nature of the quantum theory is at best an attempt by a close associate to characterize Bohr's general response to the highly problematic notion of a “quantum world,” written too late for Bohr to respond. When you ask Google to list only those pages that also mention the actual author of the words, Petersen, the number of hits drops from 286 to 18. The status of this “quotation” as hearsay is in danger of being lost. I'm particularly sensitive to this risk because in the 1980s I used to enjoy giving physics colloquia on Bell's theorem and its implications for our understanding of quantum mechanics. I was always fond of Petersen's recollection of what Bohr used to say, and I felt that his formulation captured something important about the situation revealed by Bell's theorem.
Niels Bohr thought that what quantum mechanics has taught us is not only to understand something new, but also a new meaning of the term “to understand”. Bohr wanted to free himself from ontology by putting emphasis on epistemology; i.e. on certain conditions for observation and description. He believed that the epistemological lesson of quantum mechanics was a crucial one. Basically it has two important aspects. 1. Bohr's philosophy leads to a break with the so-called correspondence theory for truth and meaning. It states that true propositions are descriptions of a world that is independent of our observations; i.e. that on a regular basis one can compare with reality, that is, in compare the two areas against each other. Bohr believed that this did not make sense, since in many situations cannot add meaning to a world that has a sich structure (the thing-in-itself), which in turn can be depicted when observed. 2. All knowledge is attained under certain conditions for description. Bohr thought that the long-lasting criterion for valid knowledge is that can communicate it unambiguously to each other. When Bohr emphasised that we are suspended in language in the sense that all knowledge determines what can say about the world in an understandable way, and not what the world actually is, this must be understood in the sense that only know the world as recognised; i.e., structured on the basis of the conditions for description, to which are, as part of the world, necessarily are subjected to. Bohr's emphasis on conditions for descriptions invalidates the well-known distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions. An important feature of the descriptive use of ordinary language, as well as in classical physics, is that description is based on a dividing line between subject and object. This results in idealism and materialism not being tenable positions. Furthermore, it is such that cannot use the designation of things independently of the designation of time and space. Logical principles are only meaningfully applied in situations relating to our conditions for observation. So based on inspiration from Bohr, Favrholdt developed a more adequate and comprehensive philosophy, where he, among other things, states that all humans possess a fundamental language, underlying all languages. This constitutes a number of concepts – the core – where the correct use is dictated by the structure of the world, which humans learn through sensory perception and action.