Two types of ontologies about the universe arise: the materialist ontologies that describe the universe (and everything in it) as composed of fluids and atoms that move through space and time, and the conventional materialist ontologies that look at nature as contained in intact particles. Even though Whitehead perceives incompatibilities with the interpretations of some physicists, this section provides discussions on Abner Shimony's five points implicitly supplied by the quantum theory, Bohr's utilization of interconnected information as nature's most basic element, the benefits of the Jamesian ontological accommodation from the Interpretation of Copenhagen, and the idea of a “closed system.” Also given in this chapter are equations and sample situations to support the propositions of Murray Gell-Mann and John Bell, Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty relations, and ontological conclusions from the quantum formalism specializing in the elaboration of potential facts.
Two types of ontologies about the universe arise: the materialist ontologies that describe the universe (and everything in it) as composed of fluids and atoms that move through space and time, and the conventional materialist ontologies that look at nature as contained in intact particles. Even though Whitehead perceives incompatibilities with the interpretations of some physicists, this section provides discussions on Abner Shimony's five points implicitly supplied by the quantum theory, Bohr's utilization of interconnected information as nature's most basic element, the benefits of the Jamesian ontological accommodation from the Interpretation of Copenhagen, and the idea of a “closed system.” Also given in this chapter are equations and sample situations to support the propositions of Murray Gell-Mann and John Bell, Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty relations, and ontological conclusions from the quantum formalism specializing in the elaboration of potential facts.
Abstract Ontology is integral to the two most fundamental scientific theories of the twentieth century: quantum theory and the special and general theories of relativity. Issues that drove the development of quantum theory include the reality of quanta, the simultaneous wave- and particle-like nature of matter and energy, determinism, probability and randomness, Schrodinger’s wave equation, and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. So did the reality of the predictions about space, time, matter, energy, and the universe itself that were deduced from the special and general theories of relativity. Dirac’s prediction of antimatter based solely on the mathematics of his theory of the electron and Pauli’s prediction of the neutrino based on his belief in quantum mechanics are cases in point. Ontological interpretations of the uncertainty principle, of quantum vacuum energy fields, and of Schrodinger’s probability waves in the form of multiple universe theories further illustrate this point.
Since its inception, the intricate mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics has empowered physicists to describe and predict specific physical events known as quantum processes. However, this success in probabilistic predictions has been accompanied by a profound challenge in the ontological interpretation of the theory. This interpretative complexity stems from two key aspects. Firstly, quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory that, so far, is not derivable from any more basic scientific theory. Secondly, it delves into a realm of invisible phenomena that often contradicts our intuitive and commonsensical notions of matter and causality. Despite its notorious difficulties of interpretation, the most widely accepted set of views of quantum phenomena has been known as the Copenhagen interpretation since the beginning of quantum mechanics. According to these views, the correct ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics is incompatible with ontological realism in general and with philosophical materialism in particular. Anti-realist and anti-materialist interpretations of quantum matter have survived until today. This paper discusses these perspectives, arguing that materialistic interpretations of quantum mechanics are compatible with its mathematical formalism, while anti-realist and anti-materialist views are based on wrong philosophical assumptions. However, although physicalism provides a better explanation for quantum phenomena than idealism, its downward reductionism prevents it from accounting for more complex forms of matter, such as biological or sociocultural systems. Thus, the paper argues that neither physicalism nor idealism can explain the universe. I propose then a non-reductionistic form of materialism called inclusive materialism. The conclusion is that the acknowledgment of the qualitative irreducibility of ontological emergent levels above the purely physical one does not deny philosophical materialism but enriches it.
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.
Abstract Quantum Mechanics (QM) stands alone as a (very) successful physical theory, but the meaning of its variables and the status of many quantities in the mathematical formalism is obscure. This unique situation prompted the need for attribution of a physical meaning to the latter, a procedure known as interpretation. On the other hand, the study of QM is usually presented, even to future scientists, within the only framework developed by Bohr and the Copenhagen researchers, known as the Copenhagen interpretation. As a contribution to the understanding and teaching of Quantum Mechanics, aimed to a broader and deeper appreciation of its fundamentals, including contemplating alternatives and updated interpretations for physicists and philosophers interested in the study of exact sciences (through Ontology, Epistemology, Logic or the Theory of Knowledge), we present a set of Conceptual Diagrams elaborated and designed to expose and facilitate the visualization of elements intervening in any interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and apply them to several well‐developed cases of the latter.
There are two widely known interpretations of quantum theory: Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation and Everett’s interpretation. The focus of Chapter 9 is to assess, within the context they provide, the interpretation-independent advances discussed in this book. We want to see whether the advances that include decoherence and quantum Darwinism fit these two established and widely known points of view. In fact, it is surprising that (with minor but significant adjustments) decoherence and quantum Darwinism fit very naturally, addressing questions that were recognized as open and important. We then discuss the existential interpretation. It can be seen as a continuation of the Copenhagen interpretation, with the Universe consisting of quantum and classical realms, but with classicality that is emergent, rather than preordained. It is also compatible with Everett’s interpretation, since quantum states and evolutions are all that is needed. However, unlike the Many Worlds interpretation (which regards the quantum state of the Universe as objectively existing, akin to a classical point in phase space or a classical electromagnetic field), the existential interpretation recognizes that quantum states combine information and existence—they are epiontic. The mix of existence and information they represent fits the relative states reading of Everett’s approach.
In this monograph I present the basic structure of an interpretation of quantum mechanics. Chapter 1 outlines the central ideas behind the interpretation and illustrates them by means of examples: Subsequent chapters fill in the details of the interpretation. But it is important to begin by explaining what I take an interpretation of quantum mechanics to be, and why any further interpretation needs to be offered. After all, quantum mechanics (in some form) is by now both a foundation for much of contemporary physics and a veteran of more than sixty years of intermittent but sometimes intense reflection on its content and meaning. What more can be, or should be, said about the interpretation of this theory? Many physicists believe that no more needs to be said: that there is basically only one way of understanding quantum mechanics, due to Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, and others, and that the only remaining interpretative task is that of the physics teacher, who seeks to perfect ways of conveying this understanding to new generations of students. Sir Rudolf Peierls, one of the more lucid and distinguished of these physicists, even objects to the use of the familiar term ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ to refer to the way of understanding quantum mechanics due to Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, and others. Because this sounds as if there were several interpretations of quantum mechanics. There is only one. There is only one way in which you can understand quantum mechanics.[…]