This paper proposes a Gadenkan experiment named “Observer’s Dilemma”, to investigate the probabilistic nature of observable phenomena. It has been reasoned that probabilistic nature in, otherwise uniquely deterministic phenomena can be introduced due to lack of information of underlying governing laws. Through theoretical consequences of the experiment, concepts of ‘Absolute Complete’ and ‘Observably Complete” theories have been introduced. Furthermore, nature of reality being ‘absolute’ and ‘observable’ have been discussed along with the possibility of multiple realities being true for observer. In addition, certain aspects of quantum mechanics have been interpreted. It has been argued that quantum mechanics is an ‘observably complete’ theory and its nature is to give probabilistic predictions. Lastly, it has been argued that “Everettian - Many world” interpretation of quantum mechanics is very real and true in the framework of ‘observable nature of reality’, for humans
This paper proposes a Gadenkan experiment named “Observer’s Dilemma”, to investigate the probabilistic nature of observable phenomena. It has been reasoned that probabilistic nature in, otherwise uniquely deterministic phenomena can be introduced due to lack of information of underlying governing laws. Through theoretical consequences of the experiment, concepts of ‘Absolute Complete’ and ‘Observably Complete” theories have been introduced. Furthermore, nature of reality being ‘absolute’ and ‘observable’ have been discussed along with the possibility of multiple realities being true for observer. In addition, certain aspects of quantum mechanics have been interpreted. It has been argued that quantum mechanics is an ‘observably complete’ theory and its nature is to give probabilistic predictions. Lastly, it has been argued that “Everettian - Many world” interpretation of quantum mechanics is very real and true in the framework of ‘observable nature of reality’, for humans
According to our current conception of physics, any valid physical theory is supposed to describe the objective evolution of a unique external world. However, this condition is challenged by quantum theory, which suggests that physical systems should not always be understood as having objective properties which are simply revealed by measurement. Furthermore, as argued below, several other conceptual puzzles in the foundations of physics and related fields point to limitations of our current perspective and motivate the exploration of an alternative: to start with the first-person (the observer) rather than the third-person perspective (the world).In this work, I propose a rigorous approach of this kind on the basis of algorithmic information theory. It is based on a single postulate: that universal induction determines the chances of what any observer sees next. That is, instead of a world or physical laws, it is the local state of the observer alone that determines those probabilities. Surprisingly, despite its solipsistic foundation, I show that the resulting theory recovers many features of our established physical worldview: it predicts that it appears to observers as if there was an external world that evolves according to simple, computable, probabilistic laws. In contrast to the standard view, objective reality is not assumed on this approach but rather provably emerges as an asymptotic statistical phenomenon. The resulting theory dissolves puzzles like cosmology's Boltzmann brain problem, makes concrete predictions for thought experiments like the computer simulation of agents, and suggests novel phenomena such as ``probabilistic zombies'' governed by observer-dependent probabilistic chances. It also suggests that some basic phenomena of quantum theory (Bell inequality violation and no-signalling) might be understood as consequences of this framework.
Classical science and in fact Post-Newtonian science up till the early twentieth century were mired in a deterministic interpretation of realities. The deterministic hypothesis in science holds that everything in nature has a cause and if one could know the antecedent causes, he could predict the future with certainty. But quantum mechanics holds that sub-atomic particles, though the ultimate materials from which all the complexity of existence in the universe emerges, do not obey deterministic laws, hence, their activities are causally indeterminate and could only be understood with probability. This paper argues that quantum mechanics can not totally be free from determinism, for it has subtly conceded to determinism in holding that the sub-atomic particles are the building blocks of the macro world, and that there is interconnection between entities in the universe, even at the nonmanifest level. The probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics only betray our human limitation of the knowledge of nature, which, I believe still have lots of tricks in our sleeves over mankind. Sophia: An African Journal of Philosophy Vol. 8(1) 2005:72-79 Keywords: Keywords:
The fundamental deterministic nature of quantum mechanics (QM) is mathematically demonstrated by the modeling of the quantum (multiple) slit experiments; hence this paper is written from a deterministic perspective (DP) in quantum mechanics. Due to approximately 90 years of indeterminism and probabilistic statistical results, the theory consists of many interpretations and is often regarded as counterintuitive. The latter is in the deterministic perspective not the case and is illustrated with some examples. After a brief historic perspective, ‘invisible’ i.e. invisible entities of reality in mathematical treatment, are introduced. These entities are handled by mathematics indirectly i.e. are described in a transformed domain without variables violating the Heisenberg relation. In nature, i.e. on micro and macro levels, causality is fully ‘entangled’ with energy, information - in the meaning of ordering or coding - as well as time. In contrast with the macro scale with many forms and types of memory functions, without a memory property of quanta, causality is the bearer of information symmetry on the quantum scale. Further on in this DP paper: mathematical and philosophical consequences and influences in several paragraphs, regarding subjects such as ‘free will’ and expected ‘threats to science’, the Bell inequalities, Alice and Bob & entanglement, causality, information, retro-causality, spooky action, encryption and computing, teleportation, and in general interpretations rooted in indeterminacy in QM as well as associated topics on independence, fine-tuning. The last paragraph outlines the mathematical treatment of QM more extensively and may clarify references to the above-mentioned topics of discussion in QM further.
This paper investigates whether physical laws are absolute or observer-dependent, bridging scientific theories and philosophical thought. It contrasts the absoluteness foundational to classical physics with the relativity introduced by Einstein and the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. The author argues that while physical laws appear universal, their interpretation and application may vary depending on the observer’s frame of reference. The discussion highlights how modern physics challenges traditional notions of objectivity, suggesting that context and observation play crucial roles in defining physical reality. Originality and AI-use statement: This work is an original research output by Begüm Yıldırım. AI tools, if used, were limited to language refinement, grammar correction, formatting, translation assistance, and clarity improvement. The conceptual framework, research direction, interpretation, models, and conclusions belong to the author. External sources, datasets, or prior works are cited where applicable.
When we are presented with apparently bizarre properties of microsystems governed by quantum mechanics (as in our discussion of the double-slit experiment in the previous chapter), we naturally ask whether it might be possible to find another theory, or at least another story to go with the equations, that would make more sense to us. We might seek a theory and a view of fundamental physical processes that would accord more with our classically based, everyday common sense. This typically takes the form of the question of the possibility of the existence of a more detailed description of atomic processes than that afforded by the wave function (that is, by the Copenhagen interpretation of the previous chapter). In this chapter we discuss some of the central interpretive problems of the Copenhagen version of quantum mechanics. Then, in the next two chapters, we look at the severe, general restrictions that are placed on any such completion of quantum mechanics and at one particular extension of quantum mechanics. First, though, we begin here with the struggle that ensued over the status of causality in quantum theory. THE COMPLETENESS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS Although the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (Section 20.4) and the lack of absolute predictive power are an inherent feature of quantum mechanics, there have been attempts to preserve an in principle completely deterministic structure for physics. Even classically, in a macroscopic sample of gas there are so many molecules that it would be hopeless, as a practical matter, to predict the future locations of all these molecules from Newton's laws of motion.
Scientific realism holds that the objects of scientific knowledge exist independently of the minds or activities of scientists and those scientific theories are true of that objective world. This is antithetical to the posits of quantum physics, a body of knowledge taken as the seal of the sciences because of its incredible feat, which emphasizes observer created reality, and to that end subjective and probabilistic understanding of realities. Given this background, we contend that, if the thesis of scientific realism were to be taken as sacrosanct, nature would have remained somewhat unfavourable since nobody would have dared to ‘create’ reality other than those originally imposed by nature. And to the quantum physicist, the resort to probabilistic conception of reality is an obvious indication that nature in its dynamism is uncanny and still has billions of tricks for mankind.