In quantum theory as it is currently formulated the measurement of an observable quantity of a physical system is the occasion for a change of state of the system, except when the state prior to the measurement is an eigenstate of the observable. Two proposals for interpreting this kind of change are examined in detail, and several variant proposals are considered briefly. According to the interpretation proposed by von Neumann, and by London and Bauer the change of state is completed only when the result of the observation is registered in the observer's consciousness. Although this interpretation appears to be free from inconsistencies, it is not supported by psychological evidence and it is difficult to reconcile with the intersubjective agreement of several independent observers. According to the interpretation proposed by Bohr, the change of state is a consequence of the fundamental assumption that the description of any physical phenomenon requires reference to the experimental arrangement. Bohr's proposals are valuable as practical maxims in scientific activity, but they are shown to involve the renunciation of any ontological framework in which all types of events—physical and mental, microscopic and macroscopic—can be located. It is concluded that a satisfactory account of the observation of microphysical quantities is unlikely if the present formulation of quantum theory is rigorously maintained.
In quantum theory as it is currently formulated the measurement of an observable quantity of a physical system is the occasion for a change of state of the system, except when the state prior to the measurement is an eigenstate of the observable. Two proposals for interpreting this kind of change are examined in detail, and several variant proposals are considered briefly. According to the interpretation proposed by von Neumann, and by London and Bauer the change of state is completed only when the result of the observation is registered in the observer's consciousness. Although this interpretation appears to be free from inconsistencies, it is not supported by psychological evidence and it is difficult to reconcile with the intersubjective agreement of several independent observers. According to the interpretation proposed by Bohr, the change of state is a consequence of the fundamental assumption that the description of any physical phenomenon requires reference to the experimental arrangement. Bohr's proposals are valuable as practical maxims in scientific activity, but they are shown to involve the renunciation of any ontological framework in which all types of events—physical and mental, microscopic and macroscopic—can be located. It is concluded that a satisfactory account of the observation of microphysical quantities is unlikely if the present formulation of quantum theory is rigorously maintained.
In quantum theory as it is currently formulated the measurement of an observable quantity of a physical system is the occasion for a change of state of the system, except when the state prior to the measurement is an eigenstate of the observable. Two proposals for interpreting this kind of change are examined in detail, and several variant proposals are considered briefly. According to the interpretation proposed by von Neumann, and by London and Bauer the change of state is completed only when the result of the observation is registered in the observer's consciousness. Although this interpretation appears to be free from inconsistencies, it is not supported by psychological evidence and it is difficult to reconcile with the inter subjective agreement of several independent observers. According to the interpretation proposed by Bohr, the change of state is a consequence of the fundamental assumption that the description of any physical phenomenon requires reference to the experimental arrangement. Bohr's proposals are valuable as practical maxims in scientific theory, but they are shown to involve the renunciation of any ontological framework in which all types of events – physical and mental, microscopic and macroscopic – can be located. It is concluded that a satisfactory account of the observation of microphysical quantities is unlikely if the present formulation of quantum theory is rigorously maintained. INTRODUCTION There are two distinct problems concerning the relationship between physical objects and consciousness.
What is a physical object according to the theory of quantum mechanics? The first answer to be considered is that given by Bohr in terms of the concept of complementarity. This interpretation is illustrated by way of an example, the two slit experiment, which highlights some of the associated problems of ontology. One such problem is the so-called problem of measurement or observation. Various interpretations of measurement in Quantum Theory, including those of Heisenberg, von Neumann, Everett and Bohr, are compared and contrasted. A second problem concerns whether or not QT can be considered complete and therefore satisfactory as a basis for physics. Various attempts to complete QT by means of the addition of ‘hidden variables’ to the quantum mechanical state function are considered and their aims and achievements assessed. Finally, we investigate some of the characteristic ontological problems for the orthodox interpretation of Relativistic Quantum Theory.
In this paper we will address important considerations for the structure of a physical theory and the need and implications for the conscious observer and creator. Complementarity and reciprocity are dominate in the sttucture of the Quantum \'Vorld. It is clear that one's meaningful existence directly involves one's intent and acdon both mental and physical in consequence. Hence, it is vital ro undersrand what intemional will is, the manner in which it arises, as it relates to one's ethical responsibility the meaning of their life may also be considered in the context of intentional will and may be described and understOod. We investigate the role of conscious intention in the physical and mental world. In this paper, we examine the theoretical constructs of the properties of observational intention and their local and nonlocal effects on mind and matter. One begins by sensing a physical or psychic input and then becoming consciously aware of it as perceptions and thoughts which result in concepts developed for memories, reasoning and feelings. Then a thought and decision will be made and imention are carried into action in the physical and mental world. We proceed by investigating the role and action of the thought of intentional will and its role in quantum mechanics, its structure of the theoty and manner in which it appears ro demand a role for consciousness. In order to proceed with our investigation will present some of the basic tenants of quantum mechanics, the structure of the theoty and manner in which it appears ro demand a role for consciousness in quantum measurement and its non local intentional interaction. The quantum theory gives us two inescapable conclusions: J) we are intimaly linked ro the world as participatory observers, and 2) nonlocal remote connections and interactions are shown to be parr of our world process. Discoveries, and/or creations of new concepts in physics lead ro the observer/participant issue. Quantum mechanics, the theory of atomic microcosm, is a description that may imply that the observer has an impact on the observed, that rhe observer has an effect on what is observed. The relativity theory scems to imply that the state of the observer affecrs his interpretation of what he sees. In the context of quantum theoty and relativity, we may be able to shed light on the relationship of discovery as well as creation and irs validation of the properties of an external reality. In quantum physics, as well as in the structure of n-dimensional relativistic models, the implication for a fundamental remore connection of events is deeply implied by the structure of these models and their experimental test and we can use this property for our experimental models of the properties of consciousness. The structure of physical theoty, its very fabric, is pointing towards a world view that speaks of concepts which have been considered external to the body of science but yet may be implied by modern physical theoty itself.
We begin by discussing ``What exists?'', i.e. ontology, in Classical Physics which provided a description of physical phenomena at the macroscopic level. The microworld however necessitates a introduction of Quantum ideas for its understanding. It is almost certain that the world is quantum mechanical at both microscopic as well as at macroscopic level. The problem of ontology of a Quantum world is a difficult one. It also depends on which interpretation is used. We first discuss some interpretations in which Quantum Mechanics does not provide a complete framework but has to be supplemented by extra ingredients e.g. (i) Copenhagen group of interpretations associated with the names of Niels Bohr, Heisenberg, von-Neumann, and (ii) de-Broglie-Bohm interpretations. We then look at some interpretations in which Quantum mechanics is supposed to provide the entire framework such as (i) Everett-deWitt many world, (ii) quantum histories interpretations. We conclude with some remarks on the rigidity of the formalism of quantum mechanics, which is sharp contrast to it's ontological fluidity.
The EPR controversy between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr about the completeness of the quantum mechanics is one of the most essential contemporary debates in physics with respect to the issue of realism. Initially considered as a though-experiment, the EPR paradox was meant to evidence the inadequacy of quantum mechanics with respect to the traditional leading principle of physics such as locality, independence of the system elements of reality with respect to the observer or semantic reference of theories to elements of the reality in itself. Bell’s mathematical inquiry opened the possibility to empirically discriminate between the view of Bohr and Einstein through the so-called Bell’s inequalities. Based on these inequalities, the experimental test provided in particular by the work of Alain Aspect settled the debate in favor of Bohr and the completeness of quantum mechanics. The previously evident assumption that physical theories are describing the reality in it-self can thus be questioned. Several approaches have been proposed to face that challenge, such as the orthodox quantum physics formulation coupled with the interpretation of Bernard d’Espagnat , the non-local theory of De Broglie-Bohm or the quantum mechanics approach with extended probability of James B. Hartle . In this paper, we consider the idea according to which the field of experiments and measurements on quantum systems is a research context where several epistemic values traditionally leading the scientific activity are in conflict. Instead of conceiving the transition from classical to quantum physics along Thomas Kuhns’ theory of revolutionary paradigm change , characterized by a strong incommensurability between the old and the new approaches, we argue that this epistemological shift could be rationally understood as an incremental evolution of the epistemic values leading scientific activity. As the analysis in this paper aims to show, such a rational reconstruction shows a process of gradual change, where core epistemic values are maintained, while others are broadened to account for the new scientific approaches. The settling of the EPR controversy could be understood as the indication that the previously assumed epistemic values cannot be consistently held together in the quantum context. The values of logical consistency and empirical adequacy remained universally shared, but the controversy leads to question the other traditionally admitted principles, such as the locality, the requirement of semantic references to the reality in itself and the independence of experimental results with respect to the observer, all tightly connected with the realistic conceptions of the world. This first part of the paper characterizes the selected contemporary approaches in quantum context with respect to the modification of the epistemic principles they adopt to restore their consistency. While the de Broglie-Bohm theory explicitly follows the requirement of referring to the reality in itself at the expense of the locality principle, the approaches of d’Espagnat and of Hartle give priority to the values of theoretical framework simplicity and predictive power. In the case of d’Espagnat, the descriptive purpose of the scientific activity remains, but only in a weak objectivity perspective, restricted to the “empirical reality” in which the observer is involved. In the case of Hartle, the extended probability formulation of quantum mechanics is conceived as “an extension of familiar probability theory that incorporates negative probabilities”6, which relies on the Bayesian conception of “probabilities as instruction for betting” (negative probability is thus associated to the instruction “don’t bet”). In a second part, the paper uses this reconstruction of the various theories in order to address the epistemic status of the principles of descriptive power and of independence of the observed system with respect to the observer. In particular, our analysis aims to assess if a reference to the observer is part of the reality description or if such reference is avoidable. This is of prior interest in exploring the main characteristics of a realistic approach that would be applicable in the context of experiments and measurements on quantum systems. In that perspective, we argue that the direct holistic realism, developed by Hilary Putnam in The Threefold Cord , could be a promising intermediate option between a classical realism, which assumes that theoretical structures are describing the reality in it-self, and a more instrumentalist view, focusing mainly on the modeling of the empirical reality as a result of experimental operations while rejecting access to the reality in itself.
This brief survey analyzes the epistemological implications about the role of observer in the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. As we know, the goal of most interpretations of quantum mechanics is to avoid the apparent intrusion of the observer into the measurement process. In the same time, there are implicit and hidden assumptions about his role. In fact, most interpretations taking as ontic level one of these fundamental concepts as information, physical law and matter bring us to new problematical questions. We think, that no interpretation of the quantum theory can avoid this intrusion until we do not clarify the nature of observer.