The quantum, strangest feature of this strange universe, cracks the armor that conceals the secret of existence. In contrast to the view that the universe is a machine governed by some magic equation, we explore here the view that the world is a self-synthesizing system of existences, built on observer-participancy via a network of elementary quantum phenomena. The elementary quantum phenomenon in the sense of Bohr, the elementary act of observer-participancy, develops definiteness out of indeterminism, secures a communicable reply in response to a well-defined question. The rate of carrying out such yes-no determinations, and their accumulated number, are both minuscule today when compared to the rate and number to be anticipated in the billions of years yet to come. The coming explosion of life opens the door, however, to an all-encompassing role for observer-participancy: to build, in time to come, no minor part of what we call its past—our past, present, and future—but this whole vast world.
The quantum, strangest feature of this strange universe, cracks the armor that conceals the secret of existence. In contrast to the view that the universe is a machine governed by some magic equation, we explore here the view that the world is a self-synthesizing system of existences, built on observer-participancy via a network of elementary quantum phenomena. The elementary quantum phenomenon in the sense of Bohr, the elementary act of observer-participancy, develops definiteness out of indeterminism, secures a communicable reply in response to a well-defined question. The rate of carrying out such yes-no determinations, and their accumulated number, are both minuscule today when compared to the rate and number to be anticipated in the billions of years yet to come. The coming explosion of life opens the door, however, to an all-encompassing role for observer-participancy: to build, in time to come, no minor part of what we call its past—our past, present, and future—but this whole vast world.
What does not satisfy me in that theory [quantum mechanics], from the standpoint of principle, is its attitude towards that which appears to me to be the programmatic aim of all physics: the complete description of any (individual) real situation (as it supposedly exists irrespective of any act of observation or substantiation). Albert Einstein, Reply to Criticisms [This] implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear . In fact, the individuality of the typical quantum effects finds its proper expression in the circumstance that any attempt of subdividing the phenomena will demand a change in the experimental arrangement introducing new possibilities of interaction between objects and measuring instruments which in principle cannot be controlled. Consequently, evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture, but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects. Indeed the finite interaction between object and measuring agencies conditioned by the very existence of the quantum of action entails – because of the impossibility of controlling the reaction of the object on the measuring instruments, if these are to serve their purpose – the necessity of a final renunciation of the classical idea of causality and a radical revision of our attitude towards the problem of physical reality. […]
This report reviews what quantum physics and information theory have to tell us about the age-old question, How come existence? No escape is evident from four conclusions: (1) The world cannot be a giant machine, ruled by any preestablished continuum physical law. (2) There is no such thing at the microscopic level as space or time or spacetime continuum. (3) The familiar probability function or functional, and wave equation or functional wave equation, of standard quantum theory provide mere continuum idealizations and by reason of this circumstance conceal the information-theoretic source from which they derive. (4) No element in the description of physics shows itself as closer to primordial than the elementary quantum phenomenon, that is, the elementary device-intermediated act of posing a yes-no physical question and eliciting an answer or, in brief, the elementary act of observer-participancy. Otherwise stated, every physical quantity, every it, derives its ultimate significance from bits, binary yes-or-no indications, a conclusion which we epitomize in the phrase, it from bit .
Abstract. This research article aims to deepen understanding of the uncertainty phenomenon and to develop the corresponding conceptual apparatus. To get this aim, comparative analysis of a row of studies of certainty and uncertainty, known from the history of scientific and philosophical thought, was completed. It was found that the classical-scientific concept of certainty grasps three essential features: 1) everything that really exists – the Universe or any of its parts – is in an actual state at every moment, having a set of properties with precise quantitative characteristics; 2) the primary, universal and only possible are the laws of motion, of being in general, which connect the past, present and future states of the existing in an exclusively necessary way; the conjunction 1) /\ 2) is equivalent to the statement that 3) the fate of the whole Universe, of everything in the Universe, is absolutely certain objectively. If we additionally assume the existence of the Laplace demon with the "intelligence sufficiently vast" to 4) exhaustively and accurately comprehend 1) and 2) and correctly operate with the knowledge gained, then for this superhuman subject the fate of anything will be quite obvious, in particular predictable. Given the explicated content of the classical-scientific concept of certainty, one can conclude that in the human world the content of the corresponding concept of uncertainty in the presence of 1) /\ 2) necessarily includes ¬4), that is, it is a conjunction1) /\ 2)/\ ¬4): let call this “uncertainty1”. A century ago, physical science discovered in the Universe a domain of chance, uncertainty, unpredictability, and probability, the existence of which does not depend on the knowledge and intelligence of a real person or even Laplace's demon: this is the "strange" quantum reality and, naturally, everything it significantly affects. The key here is the special quantum-mechanical concept of uncertainty. It is related to ¬1) directly, but more fully – it grasps in its content the conjunction ¬1) /\ 2) /\ ¬4, where ¬4 acquires an objective ground: let call it “uncertainty2”. The comprehension of uncertainty developed in newest synergetics includes negation of all the features inherent to classical certainty, including the primacy, universality, and uniqueness of the laws of nature, which absolutize necessity: in the general case, the conjunction ¬1) /\ ¬2) /\ ¬4 comes into effect here. Accordingly, it is reasonable to introduce a third special – synergetic – concept of uncertainty, let call it “uncertainty3”. It is argued that the situation of uncertainty, or the "perfect storm", in the contemporary world forms at least partly objectively, and not only due to a situational lack of information, someone's "insufficiently vast" intelligence, or conscious intention. To understand it, the classical-scientific concept of uncertainty1 is not sufficient; instead, it requires the involvement of contextually interpreted concepts of uncertainty2 and uncertainty3. The future is open and subject to only limited prediction, control, or management. For this purpose, it seems appropriate to use tools similar to nonlocal probability distribution functions in synergetics. Under conditions of instability, the complex global system, its elements and structure, innovations or changes are indeed created by numerous actors of completely different scales, values or interests. Even a spontaneous action of a minor group or an act of one person – a relatively small event, a random fluctuation – can cause some kind of “resonance” and a more or less large-scale bifurcation, a transition to one of many very different “branches” of further existence. Thus, further development of our world will depend not only on the greatest "structuring force" of today – the competition between the USA and China, but also on an effective "at an uncertain time and in an uncertain place" political, economic, military or some other fluctuation. A bifurcation it causes will probably lead to a more or less long-term stabilization of the world system with leadership either by the USA and, in general, the renewed West, or by China, part of the East and the South. However, these are only the clearest "branches" of future development: the emergence of some currently uncertain "black swan" cannot be ruled out.
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.
Abstract Quantum theory provides a superb description of physical reality on a small scale, yet it contains many mysteries. Without doubt, it is hard to come to terms with the workings of this theory, and it is particularly difficult to make sense of the kind of ‘physical reality’—or lack of it—that it seems to imply for our world. Taken at its face value, the theory seems to lead to a philosophical standpoint that many (including myself) find deeply unsatisfying. At best, and taking its descriptions at their most literal, it provides us with a very strange view of the world indeed. At worst, and taking literally the proclamations of some of its most famous protagonists, it provides us with no view of the world at all.
This essay highlights the scientific vision of John Archibald Wheeler, a giant of 20th century physics. His ideas provided the important insight that humanity may be in the very center of disclosure and manifestation of the evolution of our universe. This on the basis of scientific reasoning derived from quantum physics rather than simple anthropocentrism or scale chauvinism. Wheeler, the Joseph Henry Professor of Physics Emeritus at Princeton University, became 96. Over a long, productive scientific life, he was known for his drive to address big, overarching questions in physics, subjects which he liked to say merged with philosophical questions about the origin of matter, information and the universe. His interests ranged far and wide and were characterized by true fearlessness. Wheeler's work was not only in gravity and nuclear physics. In the 1950s Wheeler grew increasingly intrigued by the philosophical implications of quantum physics. According to Wheeler, there was no universe until the rise of consciousness to perceive it. In fact, Wheeler was one of the first prominent physicists seriously to propose that reality might not be a wholly physical phenomenon. In some sense, Wheeler suggested, reality grows out of the act of observation, and thus consciousness itself: it is participatory. He also stated that information is the most fundamental building block of reality, and that the universe should be seen as a self-synthesized information system: a self-excited circuit that is developing through a (closed loop) cycle. His cosmic variant of the delayed choice experiment led to the idea that human observers may not only determine the present, but also may influence the past. According to Wheeler, ultimate mutability is the central feature of physics, and the meaning of reality can only be established if there is a universal knowledge field, that transcend physical past, present and future.