Abstract Orthodox quantum mechanics is built upon psychophysical collapse events that are the close anahgs, within contemporary physical theory, of the the Whiteheadian actual occasions, with their mental and physical poles. This article describes the way in which these events enter into quantum theory, and mediate the emergence of actuality from potentiality.
Abstract Orthodox quantum mechanics is built upon psychophysical collapse events that are the close anahgs, within contemporary physical theory, of the the Whiteheadian actual occasions, with their mental and physical poles. This article describes the way in which these events enter into quantum theory, and mediate the emergence of actuality from potentiality.
There are deep similarities between Whitehead's idea of the process by which nature unfolds and the ideas of quantum theory. Whitehead says that the world is made of `actual occasions', each of which arises from potentialities created by prior actual occasions. These actual occasions are `happenings' modelled on experiential events, each of which comes into being and then perishes, only to be replaced by a successor. It is these experience-like `happenings' that are the basic realities of nature, according to Whitehead, not the persisting physical particles that Newtonian physics took be the basic entities. Similarly, Heisenberg says that what is really happening in a quantum process is the emergence of an `actual' from potentialities created by prior actualities. In the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory the actual things to which the theory refer are increments in `our knowledge'. These increments are experiential events. The particles of classical physics lose thei...
There are deep similarities between Whitehead's idea of the process by which nature unfolds and the ideas of quantum theory. Whitehead says that the world is made of ''actual occasions'', each of which arises from potentialities created by prior actual occasions. These actual occasions are happenings modeled on experiential events, each of which comes into being and then perishes, only to be replaced by a successor. It is these experience-like happenings that are the basic realities of nature, according to Whitehead, not the persisting physical particles that Newtonian physics took be the basic entities. Similarly, Heisenberg says that what is really happening in a quantum process is the emergence of an actual from potentialities created by prior actualities. In the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory the actual things to which the theory refer are increments in ''our knowledge''. These increments are experiential events. The particles of classical physics lose their fundamental status: they dissolve into diffuse clouds of possibilities. At each stage of the unfolding of nature the complete cloud of possibilities acts like the potentiality for the occurrence of a next increment in knowledge, whose occurrence can radically change the cloud of possibilities/potentialities for the still-later increments in knowledge. The fundamental difference between these ideas about nature and the classical ideas that reigned from the time of Newton until this century concerns the status of the experiential aspects of nature. These are things such as thoughts, ideas, feelings, and sensations. They are distinguished from the physical aspects of nature, which are described in terms of quantities explicitly located in tiny regions of space and time. According to the ideas of classical physics the physical world is made up exclusively of things of this latter type, and the unfolding of the physical world is determined by causal connections involving only these things. Thus experiential-type things could be considered to influence the flow of physical events only insofar as they themselves were completely determined by physical things. In other words, experiential-type qualities. insofar as they could affect the flow of physical events, could--within the framework of classical physics--not be free: they must be completely determined by the physical aspects of nature that are, by themselves,sufficient to determine the flow of physical events.
Abstract By the relational realist interpretation of wave function collapse, the quantum mechanical actualization of potentia is defined as a decoherence-driven process by which each actualization (in "orthodox" terms, each measurement outcome) is conditioned both by physical ana logical relations with the actualities conventionally demarked as "environmental" or external to that particular outcome. But by the relational realist interpretation, the actualization-in-process is understood as internally related to these "enironmental" data per the formalism of quantum decoherence. The concept of "actualization via wave function collapse" is accounted for solely by virtue of these presupposed logical relations—the same logical relations otherwise presupposed by the scientific method itself—and thus requires no "external" physical-dynamical trigger: e.g., the Gaussian hits of GRW, acts of conscious observation, etc. By the relational realist interpretation, it is the physical and logical relations among quantum actualities (quantum "final real things") that drives the process of decoherence and, via the latter, the logically conditioned actualization of potentia. In this regard, the relational realist interpretation of quantum mechanics is a praxiological interpretation; that is, these physical and logical relations are ontobgically active relations, contributing not just to the epistemic coordination of quantum actualizations, but to the process of actualization itself.
The genesis of actuality from potentiality, with the apparent role of the observer, is an important and unsolved problem which essentially defines science‟s view of reality in a variety of contexts. Observation then becomes lawful and not emergent. Panentheism is needed to provide a mechanism for order outside of blind efficient causality, in a Universal final causality. Classical physics is over a hundred years out of date, yet scientific models remain mechanistic and deterministic. Deism, a remnant of classical cosmology, is examined and rejected by scientists and philosophers, and certain pre-scientific notions of religion are scorned, putting the matter to rest. Quantum physics, in its basic form, is necessary if there is to be any philosophical or scientific notion of free will and self-determination, as potentiality. Quantum metaphysics is also needed because classical physics is fundamentally limited to localized external relations, lacking the internality and non-locality of relatedness. God, or the equivalent, is necessary to complete the equation. Physicists now tell us that reality is fundamentally mental and is created by observation. Observation is here taken to mean experience, with experience going all the way down to the lowest order of a Universal mentality.
Introduction: From Schrödinger's cat to Penrose's ‘OR’ Quantum mechanics – one of our two most fundamental and successful theories – is infested with a range of deep philosophical difficulties collectively known as the measurement problem (Shimony 1963, Bell 1990). In a nutshell, the problem may be stated as follows: If the orthodox formulation of quantum theory – which in general allows attributions of only objectively indefinite properties or potentialities (Heisenberg 1958) to physical objects – is interpreted in compliance with what is usually referred to as scientific realism, then one is faced with an irreconcilable incompatibility between the linearity of quantum dynamics – which governs evolution of the network of potentialities – and the apparent definite or actual properties of the physical objects of our ‘macroscopic’ world. Moreover, to date no epistemic explanation of these potentialities (e.g. in terms of ‘hidden variables’) has been completely successful (Shimony 1989). Thus, on the one hand there is overwhelming experimental evidence in favour of the quantum mechanical potentialities, supporting the view that they comprise a novel (i.e. classically uncharted) metaphysical modality of Nature situated between logical possibility and actuality (Shimony 1978, 1993a, pp. 140–62 and pp. 310–22), and on the other hand there is phenomenologically compelling proliferation of actualities in our everyday world, including even in the micro biological domain. The problem then is that a universally agreeable mechanism for transition between these two ontologically very different modalities – i.e. transition from the multiplicity of potentialities to various specific actualities – is completely missing.