Recent philosophical discussions on the nature of geomorphology ( Bassett 1994 ; Richards 1994 ; Rhoads 1994 ) have concluded that the way forward in geomorphological explanation is through either an empiricist or a realist approach. This paper draws lessons from quantum mechanics and the related concepts of decoherence and entanglement to explore the theoretical limitations of both of these existing approaches to geomorphology. It is suggested that empiricist and realist approaches are misguided in their attempts to view the researcher as being in some way ‘detached’ from the reality of the environmental system under investigation. Instead, this reality is viewed here as being consciousness‐dependent. The paper also challenges the claims to represent ‘truth’, and the deterministic view of causation, which are inherent within empiricist and realist approaches. It concludes by suggesting that an idealist approach to geomorphology – one that recognizes the primacy of consciousness – can better appreciate the unpredictable and probabilistic nature of the world.
Recent philosophical discussions on the nature of geomorphology ( Bassett 1994 ; Richards 1994 ; Rhoads 1994 ) have concluded that the way forward in geomorphological explanation is through either an empiricist or a realist approach. This paper draws lessons from quantum mechanics and the related concepts of decoherence and entanglement to explore the theoretical limitations of both of these existing approaches to geomorphology. It is suggested that empiricist and realist approaches are misguided in their attempts to view the researcher as being in some way ‘detached’ from the reality of the environmental system under investigation. Instead, this reality is viewed here as being consciousness‐dependent. The paper also challenges the claims to represent ‘truth’, and the deterministic view of causation, which are inherent within empiricist and realist approaches. It concludes by suggesting that an idealist approach to geomorphology – one that recognizes the primacy of consciousness – can better appreciate the unpredictable and probabilistic nature of the world.
Quantum theory launched a revolution in twentieth-century physics. But we have yet to appreciate the revolution’s significance for philosophy. Most studies of the conceptual foundations of quantum theory first try to interpret the theory—to say how the world could possibly be the way the theory says it is. But, though fundamental, quantum theory is enormously successful without describing the world in its own terms. When properly applied, models of quantum theory offer good advice on the significance and credibility of claims about the world expressed in other terms. This first of several philosophical lessons of the quantum revolution dissolves the quantum measurement problem. Pragmatist treatments of probability and causation show how quantum theory may be used to explain the non-localized correlations that have been thought to involve ‘spooky’ instantaneous action at a distance. Given environmental decoherence, a pragmatist inferentialist approach to content shows when talk of quantum probabilities is licensed, resolves any residual worries about whether a quantum measurement has a determinate outcome, and solves a dilemma about the ontology of a quantum field theory. This approach to meaning and reference also reveals the nature and limits of objective description in the light of quantum theory. While these pragmatist approaches to probability, causation, explanation, and content may be independently motivated by philosophical argument, their successful application here illustrates their practical importance in helping philosophers come to terms with the quantum revolution.
Abstract. I present a partially historical discussion of the basis of the quantum theory in nonmathematical terms using human knowledge and consciousness as an underlying theme. I show that the philosophical position in both classical and quantum theory is the experimental and mathematical philosophy of Isaac Newton. Because almost all the systems we deal with are multicomponent, we must consider the limitations and openness imposed by thermodynamics on our claims in both classical and quantum treatments. Here the reality of measurement stands in the way of any simple picture but also provides the basis for considerations of free will. Particular care is taken with the concepts of quantum measurement, entanglement, and decoherence because of their importance in the discussion.
Quantum theory does not describe the world and so contributes little to natural philosophy: it implies neither that a particle can be in two places at once, that a cat can be neither dead nor alive, that there is instantaneous action at a distance, nor that our observations create the world they reveal. Quantum entanglement does not say that the world is radically holist or non-separable, that the world is indeterministic or deterministic, that mind influences matter, or that consciousness plays a special role in the natural world. But the theory does have lessons to teach about how philosophy should approach topics including causation, probability, laws, composition, and ontology that traditionally fall within metaphysics. Here the quantum revolution reinforces the pragmatist lesson that such topics are best approached by asking why agents like us should have developed the concepts we have when physically situated in a world like this.
In classical physics there is, in accordance with common sense, an objective world ‘out there’. That world evolves in a clear and deterministic way, being governed by precisely formulated mathematical equations. This is as true for the theories of Maxwell and Einstein as it is for the original Newtonian scheme. Physical reality is taken to exist independently of ourselves; and exactly how the classical world ‘is’ is not affected by how we might choose to look at it. Moreover, our bodies and our brains are themselves to be part of that world. They, also, are viewed as evolving according to the same precise and deterministic classical equations. All our actions are to be fixed by these equations - no matter how we might feel that our conscious wills may be influencing how we behave. Such a picture appears to lie at the background of most serious 1 philosophical arguments concerned with the nature of reality, of our conscious perceptions, and of our apparent free will. Some people might have an uncomfortable feeling that there should also be a role for quantum theory - that fundamental but disturbing scheme of things which, in the first quarter of this century, arose out of observations of subtle discrepancies between the actual behaviour of the world and the descriptions of classical physics. To many, the term ‘quantum theory’ evokes merely some vague concept of an ‘uncertainty principle’, which, at the level of particles, atoms or molecules, forbids precision in our descriptions and yields merely probabilistic behaviour. Actually, quantum descriptions are very precise, as we shall see, although radically different from the familiar classical ones. Moreover, we shall find, despite a common view to the contrary, that probabilities do not arise at the minute quantum level of particles, atoms, or molecules - those evolve deterministically - but, seemingly, via some mysterious larger-scale action connected with the emergence of a classical world that we can consciously perceive. We must try to understand this, and how quantum theory forces us to change our view of physical reality.
Theories of decoherence come in two flavors---Platonic and Aristotelian. Platonists grant ontological primacy to the concepts and mathematical symbols by which we describe or comprehend the physical world. Aristotelians grant it to the physical world. The significance one attaches to the phenomenon of decoherence depends on the school to which one belongs. The debate about the significance of quantum states has for the most part been carried on between Platonists and Kantians, who advocate an epistemic interpretation, with Aristotelians caught in the crossfire. For the latter, quantum states are neither states of Nature nor states of knowledge. The real issue is not the kind of reality that we should attribute to quantum states but the reality of the spatial and temporal distinctions that we make. Once this is recognized, the necessity of attributing ontological primacy to facts becomes obvious, the Platonic stance becomes inconsistent, and the Kantian point of view becomes unnecessarily restrictive and unilluminating.
What quantum theory has revealed about the nature of reality has remained hidden in plain sight for almost one-hundred years because what quantum theory has revealed about the nature of reality cannot be comprehended in the context of the materialist model and conception of reality in which science presently operates, which materialist model places physical reality at the center of reality and Consciousness at the periphery, as a secondary or derivative reality. What this work will demonstrate, by explaining the heretofore inexplicable basis of the phenomena that lie at the heart of quantum theory, is that it is Consciousness rather than physical reality that lies at the center of reality, and that it is physical reality rather than Consciousness that is a secondary or derivative reality. Specifically, wave-particle duality, quantum uncertainty, quantum non-locality, the probabilistic nature of the wavefunction, and the collapse of the wavefunction, will all be shown to be phenomena that have as their basis the way in which the fundamental Reality of Consciousness, through relation to Itself, creates what it apprehends as physical reality. One of the most important things the phenomena that lie at the heart of quantum theory will be shown to reveal about the nature of reality is that the nature of physical reality is like that of a reflection, and like a reflection, physical reality is able to obscure from view what is actually there, as long as it is mistaken for what is actually there. Thus, in revealing the reflection-like nature of physical reality, the phenomena that lie at the heart of quantum theory indirectly reveal that what is actually there, underlying the reflection that is physical reality, is the non-physical, non-experiential Reality of Consciousness that is, through relation to Itself, both creating and apprehending experiential reality in general and physical reality in particular. Ultimately, understanding the reflection-like nature of physical reality should make it possible for Individuals to understand that what actually Exists directly where they are, where their physical bodies appear to be, is not different in Nature than what actually Exists everywhere else as well, where the rest of physical reality appears to be, thereby disabusing them of the notion that what they are is a physical reality, while at the same time revealing to them their true Nature as Consciousness, which, through relation to that which is also Consciousness, creates what they, as Individual points of Consciousness, apprehend as experiential reality in general and physical reality in particular. Part III of this series of three articles includes: 3. The nature of the wavefunction; 4. There is no spoon; and 5. The connection between quantum physics and eastern philosophy.