This paper presents an epistemological perspective on quantum communication between parties that highlights the choices that must be made in order to send and obtain information. The notion of information obtained in such a communication is a property associated with the observers and while dependent on the nature of the physical system its fundamental basis is epistemic. We argue that the observation process is in accord with the principle of psychophysical parallelism that was used by Bohr, von Neumann, Schrodinger and others to establish the philosophical basis of complementarity but has since fallen out of fashion. This principle gave coherence to the original Copenhagen Interpretation without which the latter has come to have some sort of an ad hoc character.
This paper presents an epistemological perspective on quantum communication between parties that highlights the choices that must be made in order to send and obtain information. The notion of information obtained in such a communication is a property associated with the observers and while dependent on the nature of the physical system its fundamental basis is epistemic. We argue that the observation process is in accord with the principle of psychophysical parallelism that was used by Bohr, von Neumann, Schrodinger and others to establish the philosophical basis of complementarity but has since fallen out of fashion. This principle gave coherence to the original Copenhagen Interpretation without which the latter has come to have some sort of an ad hoc character.
Quantum mechanics in the Wigner-von Neumann interpretation is presented. This is characterized by 1) a quantum dualism between matter and consciousness unified within an informational neutral monism, 2) a quantum perspectivism which is extended to a complementarity between the Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds formalism, 3) a psychophysical causal closure akin to Leibniz parallelism and 4) a quantum solipsism, i.e. a reality in which classical states are only potentially-existing until a conscious observation is made.
In this paper we attempt to analyze the physical and philosophical meaning of quantum contextuality. In the first part we will argue that a general confusion within the literature comes from the improper "scrambling" of two different meanings of quantum contextuality. The first one is related to an epistemic interpretation of contextuality, introduced by Bohr, which stresses the incompatibility (or complementarity) of quantum measurements. The second, is related to an ontic notion of contextuality, exposed through the Kochen-Specker (KS) theorem, which focuses on the constraints to discuss about actual (definite valued) properties within the orthodox formalism of QM. We will show how these two notions have been scrambled together creating an "omelette of contextuality" which has been fully widespread through a popularized "epistemic explanation" of the KS theorem according to which: The outcome of the observable A when mea- sured together with B or together with C will necessarily differ in case [A,B] = [A,C] = 0, and [B,C] ̸= 0. We will show why this statement is not only improperly scrambling epistemic and ontic perspectives, but is also physically and philosophically meaningless. In the second part of the paper, we will analyse the relation between ‘classical contexts’ and QM. We will show that three accepted presuppositions found within the orthodox literature are, in general, false. Namely: (i) that quantum contextuality does not preclude an objective description of physical reality, (ii) that the choice of a context (or basis) restores a classical description of reality, and (iii) that the choice of a (classical) context is a necessary condition for accounting for empirical statements in QM.
The origin and basis of the notion of quantum contextuality is identified in the Copenhagen approach to quantum mechanics, where context is automatically invoked by its requirement that the experimental arrangement involved in any measurements or set of measurements be taken into account while, in general, the outcome of a measurement may depend on other measurements immediately preceding or jointly performed on the same system. For Bohr, the specification of the experimental situation of any measurement is essential to its significance in light of complementarity and the omnipresence of the quantum of action in physics; for Heisenberg, the incompatibility of pairs of sharp measurements belonging to different situations coheres with both the completeness of the quantum state as an objective physical description and the principle of indeterminacy. Here, context in the Copenhagen approach is taken to be the equivalence class of experimental arrangements corresponding to a set of compatible measurements of quantum observables in standard quantum mechanics; the associated form of contextuality in quantum mechanics arises via the non-commutativity in general of sharp observables, proven by von Neumann, that can appear, providing different contexts. This notion is related to theoretical situations explored later by Bell, by Kochen and Specker, and by others in relation to the classification of hidden-variables theories and elsewhere in physics. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Contextuality and probability in quantum mechanics and beyond’.
The Bohr-Einstein debate on the interpretation of quantum mechanics may be viewed as a discussion on the epistemological status of knowledge gained by physics. It is shown that in fact the advent of quantum theory has led, in a new context, to an old philosophical controversy between epistemological realism (held by Einstein) and phenomenalism (held by Bohr). An inquiry into this controversy, taking into account the contemporary understanding of quantum mechanics based on the axiomatic study of its foundations, leads to the conclusion that contrary to widespread opinion, it is perfectly possible to formulate quantum mechanics in an entirely realistic manner according to the postulate of Einstein. We demonstrate that Bohr's episteme-logy, in which the role of experimental arrangements in the physical description is taken as a starting point, does not necessarily imply phenomenlism, but may be justifiably considered as a complementary standpoint to the realistic epistemology of Einstein, which is based on the notion of a mental construction which pictures reality.
Under the assumption of the materialistic-mechanistic ontology implicit in classical physics, quantum theory as interpreted through Niels Bohr's epistemology of complementarity is not formally objective; i. e., it is not informative of the state of physical systems independent of particular phenomenal manifestations of them. However, an analysis of the notion of the “physical system”, in theory, as experienced, and as existing “in-itself”, reveals that if the older ontology is replaced, quantum mechanics through complementarity becomes formally objective, points the way toward a new ontology based on the notion of the power to structure interaction between systems, and provides new insights into the relations between theory, observation, and the natural world.
This thesis is an examination of the measurement problem from within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics where I take issue with von Neumann’s theory of measurement which argues for the subjective collapse of the wave function by a conscious observer. I argue that von Neumann’s postulate of collapse has led to several intractable philosophical and conceptual problems in its account of quantum measurement. I argue that these problems arise from von Neumann’s misreading of Bohr’s complementarity regarding the relationship between subject and object as distinct metaphysical entities. Instead, I offer a new way of defining the subject-object relation based on Don Howard’s reading of Bohr’s complementarity as subject-object nonseparability (SON). I argue that the SON principle has the potential of placing Copenhagen on more solid philosophical footing by viewing the subject-object relationship not as a causal relation, but as a relation of ontological dependence to avoid the idea of collapse altogether.