The proper goal of science is a unified theory of all of nature, including our thoughts. An adequate theory of this kind will resolve the quantum measurement problem, which is to reconcile the nonclassical character of the quantum world with the classical character of our perceptions of it. A framework for such a theory is described. It weds the opposing views of Bohr and Einstein. Bohr held that quantum theory provides rules that relate aspects of our knowledge, while Einstein claimed that basic theory should describe what could be reality itself, not merely our knowledge of it.
The proper goal of science is a unified theory of all of nature, including our thoughts. An adequate theory of this kind will resolve the quantum measurement problem, which is to reconcile the nonclassical character of the quantum world with the classical character of our perceptions of it. A framework for such a theory is described. It weds the opposing views of Bohr and Einstein. Bohr held that quantum theory provides rules that relate aspects of our knowledge, while Einstein claimed that basic theory should describe what could be reality itself, not merely our knowledge of it.
For over nine decades, quantum mechanics has profoundly shaped our understanding of nature, offering explanations for the stability of atoms, the formation of mole cules, the properties of materials, and phenomena such as light or radioactivity. It is essential to modern technologies—from microchips to lasers—and underpins the physics of elementary particles. Yet, despite its successes, it remains a deeply mysterious theory, confronting a central enigma: why does the quantum world behave so differently from everyday reality? Elements such as superposition and quantum entanglement—which allow particles to exist simultaneously in multiple states or remain interconnected regardless of distance—contradict classical world intuitions. This gap between microscopic and macroscopic behavior has given rise to what is known as the “measurement problem,” raising fundamental questions about the nature of reality. Diverging interpretations have led to two major schools of thought: anti-realism, promoted by Niels Bohr, which holds that reality depends on the observer and their interaction with measurement instruments; and realism, supported by Albert Einstein, which argues that quantum mechanics is incomplete and that eality exists independently of observation. Bohr’s complementary philosophy and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle were central to the formulation of the “Copenhagen interpretation,” which became dominant in the 20th century. However, the persistent opposition of scientists like Einstein and Schrödinger inspired generations of physicists to seek a unification between quantum mechanics and relativity, culminating in new theories such as loop quantum gravity and string theory. Thus, the debate between realism and anti-realism remains alive, and philosophy continues to play a crucial role in exploring the new foundations of physics.
Abstract Quantum theory has presented scientists and philosophers of science with a series of perplexing questions. It seems to many that any attempt to comprehend a world described by quantum theory will require revision in our understanding of the nature of things far more radical than the revision in our understanding of the nature of space and time demanded by the theories of relativity. It has been claimed that to comprehend quantum theory we must revise our very understanding of such matters as the objective nature of reality and its independence from our perception of it, the nature of a complex system and its relation to its components, and the nature of causal and other kinds of determination in the world.
Introduction Quantum measurement problem is a technical euphemism for a much deeper and less well-defined question: How do we, “the observers,” fit within the physical universe? The problem is especially apparent in quantum physics because, for the first time in the history of science a majority of (but not all) physicists seriously entertains the possibility that the framework for the ultimate universal physical theory provided by quantum mechanics is here to stay. Quantum physics relevant for this discussion is (contrary to the common prejudice) relatively simple. By this I mean that some of the key features of its predictions can be arrived at on the basis of overarching principles of quantum theory and without reference to the minutiae of other specific ingredients (such as the details of the forces). Quantum superposition principle is such an overarching principle of quantum theory. It leads to predictions that seem difficult to reconcile with our perception of the familiar classical universe of everyday experience. The aim of this paper is to show that appearance of the classical reality can be viewed as a result of the emergence of the preferred states from within the quantum substrate through the Darwinian paradigm, once the survival of the fittest quantum states and selective proliferation of the information about them throughout the universe are properly taken into account.
It is argued that quantum measurements do pose a problem, within the context created by the fundamental aim of science, which is identified as the construction of a cohesive, comprehensive, and rationally coherent idea of the nature of the world in which we live. Models of nature are divided into two classes: (1), those in which there is a selection process that, for any possible measurement, would, if that measurement were to be performed, pick out one single outcome, and, (2), all others. It is proved that any model of class that reproduces the predictions of quantum theory must violate the condition that there be no faster-than-light influences of any kind. This result is used to motivate the study of models in which unitary evolution is maintained and there is no selection of unique outcomes. A consideration of ontic probabilities, historical records, and the form of the mind-brain connection leads to an elaboration of the Everett many-worlds interpretation that appears to provide the basis of satisfactory solution of the measurement problem. 18 refs.
It is often thought that idealism, which affirms that reality is mind-dependent in some relevant sense, leads to antirealism in science. This chapter argues that this common perception gets the cart before the horse. It is rather the case that realism in science, especially in regard to relativistic quantum physics and consciousness, leads to idealism – theistic quantum-informational idealism, to be precise – as the best account of the nature of reality. The chapter outlines the scientific basis for these claims and sketches the arguments for them, starting with an evaluation of the metaphysical significance of relativistic quantum physics for material identity and the character of physical law. It define three basic kinds of realism – metaphysical realism, critical epistemic realism, and critical scientific realism – and evaluate their relationship to theistic quantum-informational idealism as the metaphysical framework unifying the insights into reality that follow from quantum physics and consciousness studies.
AbstractQuantum physics has overturned the classical view of the world by introducing probability, indeterminacy and the participation of the observer. It is not merely a scientific revolution, it reshapes causality, reality and knowledge, opening the way to an epistemology of relation. From Bohr to Rovelli, from Heisenberg to Morin, contemporary thought recognizes that reality no longer appears as an independent structure, but as a network of interactions. This relational conception of the world crosses the boundary between science and philosophy and invites us to rethink human responsibility in the production of knowledge. Knowledge thus becomes an act of co-creation, articulating scientific rigor, reflexivity and awareness of interconnectedness : a new humanism grounded in complexity and relation. Keywordsquantum mechanics, indeterminacy, causality, reality, observer, relation, epistemology, complexity, complementarity, entanglement, Bohr, Heisenberg, Rovelli, Morin, humanism, responsibility, knowledge, interaction, philosophy of science, ethics of knowledge