We have recently started to understand that fundamental aspects of complex systems such as emergence, the measurement problem, inherent uncertainty, complex causality in connection with unpredictable determinism, timeirreversibility and nonlocality all highlight the observer's participatory role in determining their workings. In addition, the principle of 'limited universality' in complex systems, which prompts us to search for the appropriate 'level of description in which unification and universality can be expected', looks like a version of Bohr's 'complementarity principle'. It is more or less certain that the different levels of description possible of a complex whole actually partial objectifications are projected on to and even redefine its constituent parts. Thus it is interesting that these fundamental complexity issues don't just bear a formal resemblance to, but reveal a profound connection with, quantum mechanics. Indeed, they point to a common origin on a deeper level of description.
We have recently started to understand that fundamental aspects of complex systems such as emergence, the measurement problem, inherent uncertainty, complex causality in connection with unpredictable determinism, timeirreversibility and nonlocality all highlight the observer's participatory role in determining their workings. In addition, the principle of 'limited universality' in complex systems, which prompts us to search for the appropriate 'level of description in which unification and universality can be expected', looks like a version of Bohr's 'complementarity principle'. It is more or less certain that the different levels of description possible of a complex whole actually partial objectifications are projected on to and even redefine its constituent parts. Thus it is interesting that these fundamental complexity issues don't just bear a formal resemblance to, but reveal a profound connection with, quantum mechanics. Indeed, they point to a common origin on a deeper level of description.
Quantum mechanics is usually defined in terms of some loosely connected axioms and rules. Such a foundation is far from the beauty of, e.g., the `principles' underlying classical mechanics. Motivated, in addition, by notorious interpretation problems, there have been numerous attempts to modify or `complete' quantum mechanics. A first attempt was based on so-called hidden variables; its proponents essentially tried to expel the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. More recent proposals intend to complete quantum mechanics not within mechanics proper but on a `higher (synthetic) level'; by means of a combination with gravitation theory (R Penrose), with quantum information theory (C M Caves, C A Fuchs) or with psychology and brain science (H P Stapp). I think it is fair to say that in each case the combination is with a subject that, per se , suffers from a very limited understanding that is even more severe than that of quantum mechanics. This was acceptable, though, if it could convincingly be argued that scientific progress desperately needs to join forces. Quantum mechanics of a closed system was a beautiful and well understood theory with its respective state being presented as a point on a deterministic trajectory in Liouville space---not unlike the motion of a classical N -particle system in its 6N -dimensional phase-space. Unfortunately, we need an inside and an outside view, we need an external reference frame, we need an observer. This unavoidable partition is the origin of most of the troubles we have with quantum mechanics. A pragmatic solution is introduced in the form of so-called measurement postulates: one of the various incompatible properties of the system under consideration is supposed to be realized (i.e. to become a fact, to be defined without fundamental dispersion) based on `instantaneous' projections within some externally selected measurement basis. As a result, the theory becomes essentially statistical rather than deterministic; furthermore there is an asymmetry between the observed and the observing. This is the point where consciousness may come in. Complemented by an introduction and several appendices, Henry Stapp's book consists essentially of three parts: theory, implications, and new developments. The theory part gives a very readable account of the Copenhagen interpretation, some aspects of a psychophysical theory, and, eventually, hints towards a quantum foundation of the brain--mind connection. The next part, `implications', summarizes some previous attempts to bridge the gap between the working rules of quantum mechanics and their possible consequences for our understanding of this world (Pauli, Everett, Bohm, Heisenberg). The last section, `new developments', dwells on some ideas about the conscious brain and its possible foundation on quantum mechanics. The book is an interesting and, in part, fascinating contribution to a field that continues to be a companion to `practical' quantum mechanics since its very beginning. It is doubtful whether such types of `quantum ontologies' will ever become (empirically) testable; right now one can hardly expect more than to be offered some consistent `grand picture', which the reader may find more or less acceptable or even rewarding. Many practicing quantum physicists, though, will remain unimpressed. The shift from synthetic ontology to analytic ontology is the foundation of the present work. This means that fundamental wholes are being partitioned into their ontologically subordinate components by means of `events'. The actual event, in turn, is an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state describing the quantum universe. The new state then defines the tendencies associated with the next actual event. To avoid infinite regression in terms of going from one state of tendencies to the next, consciousness is there to give these events a special `feel', to provide a status of `intrinsic actuality'. The brain of an alert human observer is similar in an important way to a quantum detection device: it can amplify small signals to large macroscopic effects. On the other hand, actual events are not postulated to occur exclusively in brains. They are more generally associated with the formation of records. Records are necessarily part of the total state of the universe: it is obvious that the state of the universe cannot undergo a Schrödinger dynamics and at the same time record its own history. `The full universe consists therefore of an exceedingly thin veneer of relatively sluggish, directly observable properties resting on a vast ocean or rapidly fluctuating unobservable ones.' The present ideas also bear on how the world should be seen to develop. While conventional cosmology encounters problems as to how to define the intial conditions, which would enter the governing equations of motion, here `the boundary conditions are set not at some initial time, but gradually by a sequence of acts that imposes a sequence of constraints. After any sequence of acts there remains a collection of possible worlds, some of which will be eliminated by the next act.' Connected with those acts is `meaning': there has always been some speculation about the special significance of local properties in our understanding of the world. One could argue that correlations (even the quantum correlations found, e.g., in the EPR-experiments) were as real as anything else. But also Stapp stresses the special role of locality: the `local observable properties, or properties similar to them are the natural, and perhaps exclusive, carriers of meaning in the quantum universe. From this point of view the quantum universe tends to create meaning.' This sounds like an absolute concept: meaning not with respect to something else, but defined intrinsically---not easy to digest. The role of consciousness in the developing quantum universe requires more attention. `The causal irrelevance of our thoughts within classical physics constitutes a serious deficiency of that theory, construed as a description of reality.' This is taken to be entirely different within quantum mechanics. `The core idea of quantum mechanics is to describe our activities as knowledge-seeking and knowledge-using agents.' `21st century science does not reduce human beings to mechanical automata. Rather it elevates human beings to agents whose free choices can, according to the known laws, actually influence their behaviour.' An example with respect to perception is discussed: `Why, when we look at a triangle, do we experience three lines joined at three points and not some pattern of neuron firings?' The brain `does not convert an actual whole triangle into some jumbled set of particle motions; rather it converts a concatenation of separate external events into the actualization of some single integrated pattern of neural activity that is congruent to the perceived whole triangle.' How convincing is this proposal? It is hard to tell. I think Henry Stapp did a good job, but there are tight limitations to any such endeavour. Quantum mechanics is often strange indeed, but it also gives rise to our classical world around us. For the emergence of classicality jumps and measurement projections (the basic phenomena connected with those fundamental events of choice) are not needed. Therefore, I doubt whether the explanation of the evolution of our world really allows (or requires) that much free choice. On the other hand, most scientist will agree that empirical science was not possible without free will: we could not ask independent questions if this asking was part of a deterministic trajectory. The fact that the result of a quantum measurement is indeterminate (within given probabilities) does certainly not explain free will. How about the type of measurment? The experimentalist will have to assume that he can select the pertinent observable within some limits. But given a certain design the so-called pointer basis (producing stable measurement results) is no longer a matter of free choice. `The main theme of classical physics is that we live in a clocklike universe.' Today it is often assumed that the universe was a big (quantum-) computer or a cellular automaton. Many would be all too happy to leave that rather restrictive picture behind. But where to go? Stapp suggests giving consciousness a prominent role: `The most profound alteration of the fundamental principles was to bring consciousness of human beings into the basic structure of the physical theory.' How far we are able to go in this direction will depend on the amount of concrete research results becoming available to support this view.
At each level of hierarchy, especially in the relevant energies for the phenomena under study, various concepts and entities of physics emerge. While reducible to other levels that are smaller in size or higher in energy, many of those degrees of freedom are frozen and do not come into play, so that it is the emergent entities that are relevant. With examples such as temperature and phases of matter, this approach to complexity is seen as fundamental, with lessons also for emergent concepts in other sciences. In blurring over the coherences of quantum wave functions, classical mechanics,with its familiar concepts of position, momentum etc., is itself emergent from quantum physics. Much of the mystery of quantum physics lies in this distinction between the underlying reality, which is out of reach directly, but accessible only through these emergent concepts, however natural they may appear.
Bohr’s complementarity principle was introduced as a qualitative statement about quantum systems, which have properties that are equally real, but mutually exclusive. This principle, together with the uncertainty principle, is at the origin of Quantum Mechanics (QM), following the development of the theory since then. Another intriguing aspect of QM is entanglement, which is a type of correlation that is only possible within the mathematical formalism of QM. Its central importance in the Quantum foundations, as well as its important role in the fields of quantum information and quantum computation, has made the theory of entanglement achieve great progress in recent decades. In this dissertation we discuss the aspects and relations among complementarity relations, uncertainty, and entanglement. Such aspects are also investigated in relativistic scenarios, since the interest on how entanglement behaves in relativistic scenarios has grown more and more. First, by exploring the properties of the density operator, we obtain complementarity relations, using coherence measures well known in the literature. Next, we show that it is possible to obtain complete complementarity relations, i.e., relations that also take into account entanglement. For this, we explore the purity of a multipartite quantum system. In addition, we discuss the relation between complementarity and uncertainty of an observable, since it is possible to decompose uncertainty into its classical and quantum parts. We also obtain complementarity relations for uncertainty. Finally, we study the complete complementary relations and its Lorentz invariance. Although it is known that entanglement entropy does not remain invariant under Lorentz transformations, and neither does the measures that quantifies complementarity, we show that theses measures when taken together, in a complete complementarity relation, are Lorentz invariant.
It seems to be a priori impossible to formulate any general theory or model that encompasses all of the properties of complexity. So, one must make do with partial solutions. A possible approach we propose is to take inspiration from quantum theory, since there seems to be a strong analogy between complex systems and quantum systems. Although we do not propose any literal application of quantum mechanical formalism to complexity, we suggest that the language of quantum mechanics is already so well developed - and for a much wider spectrum of problems than most theories - that it can serve as a model for complexity theory. There are many problems common to both complex systems and quantum systems and we suggest that it might be useful to test the applicability of aspects of the “language” of quantum mechanics to a general complex system. What we suggest here is an interdisciplinary talk led between the natural sciences and philosophy, which we believe is the only way in which to deal with complexity “as such”.
In this article, we will examine new fundamental aspects of "emergence" and "information" using novel approaches to quantum mechanics which originated from the group around Aharonov. The two-state vector formalism provides a complete description of pre- and post-selected quantum systems and has uncovered a host of new quantum phenomena which were previously hidden. The most important feature is that any weak coupling to a pre- and post-selected system is effectively a coupling to a "weak value" which is given by a simple expression depending on the two-state vector. In particular, weak values, are the outcomes of so called "weak measurements" which have recently become a very powerful tool for ultra-sensitive measurements. Using weak values, we will show how to separate a particle from its properties, not unlike the Cheshire cat story: "Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin," thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!" Next, we address the question whether the physics on different scales "emerges" from quantum mechanics or whether the laws of physics at those scales are fundamental. We show that the classical limit of quantum mechanics is a far more complicated issue; it is in fact dramatically more involved and it requires a complete revision of all our intuitions. The revised intuitions can then serve as a guide to finding novel quantum effects. Next we show that novel experimental aspects of contextuality can be demonstrated with weak measurements and these suggest new restrictions on hidden variable approaches. Next we emphasize that the most important implication of the Aharonov-Bohm effect is the existence of non-local interactions which do not violate causality. Finally, we review some generalizations of quantum mechanics and their implications for "emergence" and "information." First, we review an alternative approach to quantum evolution in which each moment of time is viewed as a new "universe" and time evolution is given by correlations between different moments. Next, we present a new solution to the measurement problem involving future boundary conditions placed on the universe as a whole. Finally, we introduce another fundamental approach to quantum evolution which allows for tremendous richness in the types of allowable Hamiltonians.
We take it for granted that our physical environment communicates information, making things observable and measurable. However, there are very strong constraints on the fundamental physics of any universe that can do this. Measuring or communicating any kind of information always requires an appropriate interactive context, and these contexts are necessarily complex, involving other kinds of information determined in different contexts. This makes measurement hard to grasp theoretically, since every measurement depends on other kinds of measurements. Even so, we can identify some basic functional requirements for a physics that determines and communicates facts. These are sufficient to explain the peculiar features of quantum mechanics, combining the unitary evolution of superpositions with the mysterious "collapse" that occurs whenever the context allows new facts to be defined. Moreover, the precise determinism of classical physics can be understood on the same basis. It seems likely, in fact, that most of the complexity and fine-tuning we see in our most fundamental theories is needed to make any kind of information measurable.