What is the nature of reality? How should be an answer to this question? At this level, we are so deep that all our concepts are obscure. Quantum theory (QT) is at this level. The quest for interpreting it fails because the clarity of our actual fundamental concepts in ordinary language cannot match the precision of the theory's mathematical formalism. The interpretation of quantum mechanics should define and bring clarity to fundamental concepts; not simply rely over them. Quantum theory requires a new worldview, the one that will make it understandable. We discuss on the formulation and interpretation of closed, and final theories, in other words, completely axiomatic theories that define their own conceptual framework, and closed theories that cannot be made simpler. We claim that everything we can properly say about a theory follows from its interpretation, and that interpreting is saying the meaning of each of its mathematical statements. We argue that quantum mechanics is a closed theory; and, therefore, that part of it is part of the final or fundamental theory of physics (FTP). We propose a new entirely axiomatic formulation of part of quantum theory (including all its mathematical framework) in which new powerful and useful elements are added to the existing formalism. Our interpretation is straightforward: it allows us reading or saying the meaning of each of the theory's axiom, theorem or element. We state that the proposed theory is the FTP. Its interpretation may dissolve most of the existing paradoxes around QT. The principle of excluded middle is not valid in general. Both epistemic and ontic elements are present in the theory since it is a theory of knowledge and truth. This and other fundamental concepts are defined by the theory, which can represent both reality and our knowledge about it. Aesthetics is one of its key features.
What is the nature of reality? How should be an answer to this question? At this level, we are so deep that all our concepts are obscure. Quantum theory (QT) is at this level. The quest for interpreting it fails because the clarity of our actual fundamental concepts in ordinary language cannot match the precision of the theory's mathematical formalism. The interpretation of quantum mechanics should define and bring clarity to fundamental concepts; not simply rely over them. Quantum theory requires a new worldview, the one that will make it understandable. We discuss on the formulation and interpretation of closed, and final theories, in other words, completely axiomatic theories that define their own conceptual framework, and closed theories that cannot be made simpler. We claim that everything we can properly say about a theory follows from its interpretation, and that interpreting is saying the meaning of each of its mathematical statements. We argue that quantum mechanics is a closed theory; and, therefore, that part of it is part of the final or fundamental theory of physics (FTP). We propose a new entirely axiomatic formulation of part of quantum theory (including all its mathematical framework) in which new powerful and useful elements are added to the existing formalism. Our interpretation is straightforward: it allows us reading or saying the meaning of each of the theory's axiom, theorem or element. We state that the proposed theory is the FTP. Its interpretation may dissolve most of the existing paradoxes around QT. The principle of excluded middle is not valid in general. Both epistemic and ontic elements are present in the theory since it is a theory of knowledge and truth. This and other fundamental concepts are defined by the theory, which can represent both reality and our knowledge about it. Aesthetics is one of its key features.
Modern scientists describe the universe in terms of two basic partial theories: firstly, the general theory of relativity proposed by Albert Einstein, and secondly, the theory of quantum mechanics. This theory introduces an immense reality and simultaneously creates complex questions for the world of physics. Quantum mechanics is an incompletable knowledge however scientists are finding the basic theories from this theory. They propose complex mathematical expressions from quantum mechanics to prove the basic law of atoms. Quantum mechanics is the entire knowledge of subatomic particles such as electrons, protons, and neutrons. Quantum mechanics reveals that what we see is just a part of a deeper reality. Then we can grasp from this theory that the material world is not the completed reality; there are other things beyond human physical senses. The concept of quantum mechanics describes particles that can exist in multiple states. The concept of quantum mechanics is directly proportional to contemporary world technologies. The super specialty of this theory is that scientists cannot be explained universe without quantum mechanics. The uncertainty principle of Heisenberg in quantum mechanics suggests that there are limits to what we can know about a particle state of an atom. Humans cannot yet find out what it looks like and how we can imagine the existence of subatomic particles in an atom. That was an unseen dynamite for humans' perspective observation of the material world.
Formulations of quantum mechanics (QM) can be characterized as realistic, operationalist, or a combination of the two. In this paper a realistic theory is defined as describing a closed system entirely by means of entities and concepts pertaining to the system. An operationalist theory, on the other hand, requires in addition entities external to the system. A realistic formulation comprises an ontology, the set of (mathematical) entities that describe the system, and assertions, the set of correct statements (predictions) the theory makes about the objects in the ontology. Classical mechanics is the prime example of a realistic physical theory. A straightforward generalization of classical mechanics to QM is hampered by the inconsistency of quantum properties with classical logic, a circumstance that was noted many years ago by Birkhoff and von Neumann. The present realistic formulation of the histories approach originally introduced by Griffiths, which we call 'compatible quantum theory (CQT)', consists of a 'microscopic' part (MIQM), which applies to a closed quantum system of any size, and a 'macroscopic' part (MAQM), which requires the participation of a large (ideally, an infinite) system. The first (MIQM) can be fully formulated based solely on the assumption of a Hilbert space ontology and the noncontextuality of probability values, relying in an essential way on Gleason's theorem and on an application to dynamics due in large part to Nistico. Thus, the present formulation, in contrast to earlier ones, derives the Born probability formulas and the consistency (decoherence) conditions for frameworks. The microscopic theory does not, however, possess a unique corpus of assertions, but rather a multiplicity of contextual truths ('c-truths'), each one associated with a different framework. This circumstance leads us to consider the microscopic theory to be physically indeterminate and therefore incomplete, though logically coherent. The completion of the theory requires a macroscopic mechanism for selecting a physical framework, which is part of the macroscopic theory (MAQM). The selection of a physical framework involves the breaking of the microscopic 'framework symmetry', which can proceed either phenomenologically as in the standard quantum measurement theory, or more fundamentally by considering the quantum system under study to be a subsystem of a macroscopic quantum system. The decoherent histories formulation of Gell-Mann and Hartle, as well as that of Omnès, are theories of this fundamental type, where the physical framework is selected by a coarse-graining procedure in which the physical phenomenon of decoherence plays an essential role. Various well-known interpretations of QM are described from the perspective of CQT. Detailed definitions and proofs are presented in the appendices.
Introduction Chapter 1 dealt with one of the deepest mysteries in modern science: how to explain consciousness. This Part deals with another mystery: how to make sense of quantum mechanics. Both involve a problem of reconciliation with the classical worldview, which is one hint that the two mysteries might be related. A second is that, unlike classical physics, which makes no reference to or allowance for consciousness, quantum theory raises the issue of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world in a very direct way. These hints do not necessarily mean there is a connection between the two mysteries, but by the end of this Part I hope to have shown why it would be natural to look for one. My more immediate aim here is to give the social scientific reader an introductory understanding of the experimental findings of quantum theory, its key concepts, and the debates about its interpretation. The discussion assumes no prior knowledge of quantum physics and makes no use of mathematics. Quantum theory without equations might seem like an oxymoron, and certainly reading this Part will not enable anyone to use quantum theory. But to a perhaps surprising degree it is possible to understand quantum theory without being able to use it. Its findings can be communicated in ordinary language, and the same goes for its main concepts and interpretive debates. One consequence of this has been the emergence of a virtual cottage industry of books on quantum theory for a lay audience. Most are written by physicists, and many are quite good. However, it is not just popular treatments that do without equations: much of the professional philosophical literature does as well. (I draw on both kinds of literature below.) Philosophers of physics are trained to understand the math, of course, which is necessary for a full appreciation of the issues.
The general view is that all fundamental physical laws should be formulated within the framework given by quantum mechanics (QM). In a sense, QM therefore has the character of a metaphysical theory. Consequently, if it is possible to derive QM from more basic principles, these principles should be of general, philosophical nature. Here, we derive the formalism of QM from well-motivated epistemic principles. A key assumption is that a physical theory that relies on entities or distinctions that are unknowable in principle gives rise to wrong predictions. First, an epistemic formalism is developed, using concepts like knowledge and potential knowledge, identifying a physical state S with the potential knowledge of the physical world. It is demonstrated that QM emerges from this formalism. However, Hilbert spaces, wave functions and probabilities are defined in certain well-defined observational contexts only. This means that the epistemic formalism is broader than QM. In the fundamental layer of description, the physical state S is a subset of a state space S={Z}, such that S always contains many elements Z. These elements correspond to unattainable states of complete knowledge of the world. The evolution of S cannot be determined in terms of the individual evolution of the elements Z, unlike the evolution of an ensemble in classical phase space. The evolution of S is described in terms of sequential time n∈N, which is updated according to n→n+1 each time an event occurs, each time potential knowledge changes. Sequential time n can be separated from relational time t, which describes distances between events in space-time. There is an entire space-time associated with each n, in which t represents the knowledge at sequential time n about the temporal relations between present and past events.
Beginning in 1900 with 1-iax Planck's hypothesis of quanta, physics has been embarked on a course which has raised serious questions about the true nature of physical reality, about the foundational assumptions and structures of science, and about the relationships between physical reality and physical theory. In particular, attempts to give a physical interpretation to quantum theory seem to result in "pictures" of nature which are paradoxical. A subatomic entity is described by the theory as exhibiting the properties and behavior of both particle-like phenomena and wavelike phenomena. Since it seems unreasonable that a single entity could be both a point-like mass and a wave spread out through a region of space, quantum theory would seem to be less than satisfactory or less than complete at the interpretational level. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the underlying causes of this paradox. The dissertation proceeds by reviewing the development of quantum theory and the emergence of the paradox. Next, the problem of physical interpretation is examined and several of the more significant existing interpretations are discussed and analyzed. Finally, the foundations of science and the general structure of scientific theory are examined in a search for the origins of the paradox. As a result of these investigations and analyses, it is concluded that the paradoxical nature of the physical interpretation of quantum theory is the consequence of certain paradigms and preconceptualizations about physical reality which have been incorporated into the theory at the foundational level. These fundamental assU14ptions produce, within quantum theory, a forced marriage of the plenum and atomic views of physical reality. They also produce an ambiguity with respect to the nature of causality which is charaeteristic of the theory. These problems are reflected in the mathematical formalisms and physical concepts of the theory as well as in its metaphysical foundations. Lastly, methods of resoling the paradox are discussed. It is argued that a successful solution is possible, but that it would involve the creation of a new metaphor-an extension of the present language--which would lead science to a deeper, subquantum level in terms of which the present paradox would vanish.
Quantum theory poses deep challenges to the mechanical conception of reality that underlies classical physics. Yet today, over eighty years after its creation, its implications for our picture of reality remain enshrouded in uncertainty. In view of the current search for a more comprehensive theory of physics (a so-called theory of everything), it is vital that these implications be clearly elucidated. In this article, I describe the nature of the challenge posed by quantum theory, and outline efforts that have been made to better understand its nonclassical features, such as non-locality. In particular, I discuss the informational perspective, which, through the study of quantum information processing, has provided deep insights into the nature of quantum reality, and has also revitalized the long-standing quest to reconstruct the content of the rather mysterious mathematical formalism of quantum theory from a set of crisp physical principles. Finally, I indicate some implications of recent reconstructive work for the search for a theory of quantum gravity, and, more broadly, for our picture of physical reality.