While the subjective normally exists in the mind, it is possible to transform it into the objective through the process of experimental measurement. The existence of the semiconductor hole as a real particle that determines the measurable properties of semiconductors demonstrates that a missing electron can acquire all the properties of a real particle. This analogy can be used to explain how the initially imaginary massless and elusive particle proposed by Pauli in 1930 to explain nuclear beta decay was eventually made real through experimental verification by Cowan and Reines in 1956. The act of measurement is thus able to create reality. This process is dubbed “the spectrum of reality.” While not all physical entities are directly accessible to experimental measurement, all experiments of physics always happen in the “here and now.” The design and implementation of physical experiments are often concatenations of hypotheses and measurement. Humans act as animate observers at the interface of the physical realms, and are able to create theories, and design and conduct experiments, as well as interpret their outcomes.
While the subjective normally exists in the mind, it is possible to transform it into the objective through the process of experimental measurement. The existence of the semiconductor hole as a real particle that determines the measurable properties of semiconductors demonstrates that a missing electron can acquire all the properties of a real particle. This analogy can be used to explain how the initially imaginary massless and elusive particle proposed by Pauli in 1930 to explain nuclear beta decay was eventually made real through experimental verification by Cowan and Reines in 1956. The act of measurement is thus able to create reality. This process is dubbed “the spectrum of reality.” While not all physical entities are directly accessible to experimental measurement, all experiments of physics always happen in the “here and now.” The design and implementation of physical experiments are often concatenations of hypotheses and measurement. Humans act as animate observers at the interface of the physical realms, and are able to create theories, and design and conduct experiments, as well as interpret their outcomes.
“I refute it thus!” Samuel Johnson famously dismissed Bishop George Berkeley's argument for the unreality of matter by kicking a large stone (Boswell, 1823). In the light of modern physics, however, Johnson's simple reasoning evaporates. Apparently solid matter is revealed, on closer inspection, to be almost all empty space, and the particles of which matter is composed are themselves ghostly patterns of quantum energy, mere excitations of invisible quantum fields, or possibly vibrating loops of string living in a ten-dimensional space–time (Greene, 1999). The history of physics is one of successive abstractions from daily experience and common sense, into a counterintuitive realm of mathematical forms and relationships, with a link to the stark sense data of human observation that is long and often tortuous. Yet at the end of the day, science is empirical, and our finest theories must be grounded, somehow, “in reality.” But where is reality? Is it in acts of observation of the world made by human and possibly non-human observers? In records stored in computer or laboratory notebooks? In some objective world “out there”? Or in a more abstract location? The ground of reality When a physicist performs an experiment, he or she interrogates nature and receives a response that, ultimately, is in the form of discrete bits of information (think of “yes” or “no” binary answers to specific questions), the discreteness implied by the underlying quantum nature of the universe (Zeilinger, 2004). Does reality then lie in the string of bits that come back from the set of all observations and experiments – a dry sequence of ones and zeros? Do these observations merely transfer really-existing bits of information from an external world reality to the minds of observers, or are the bits of information created by the very act of observation/experiment? And – the question to which this entire discussion is directed – are bits of “classical” information the only sort of information that count in the reality game, or does an altogether different form of information underpin reality? In short, where is the ontological ground on which our impression of a really-existing universe rests?
Quantum mechanics is an immensely successful theory, occupying a unique position in the history of science. It has solved mysteries ranging from macroscopic superconductivity to the microscopic theory of elementary particles and has provided deep insights into the nature of vacuum on the one hand and the description of the nucleon on the other. Whole new fields such as quantum optics and quantum electronics owe their very existence to this body of knowledge. However, despite the stunning successes of quantum mechanics, there is no general agreement on the conceptual foundations and interpretation of the subject. The theory provides unambiguous information about the outcome of a measurement of a physical object. However, many feel that it does not provide a satisfactory answer to the nature of the “reality” we should attribute to the physical objects between the acts of measurement. The conceptual difficulty comes about because the wave function |ψ〉 is usually given by a coherent superposition of various distinguishable experimental outcomes. If we denote the collection of states that represent the possible outcomes of an experiment by |ψ j 〉, then |ψ〉 = ∑ j c j |ψ j 〉 where c j = 〈ψ j |ψ〉. The probability of the outcome |ψ j 〉 is P j =|c j | 2 . In the process of measurement, the so called collapse of the wave function takes place and a single, definite state |ψ i 〉 of the physical object is chosen. The difficulty comes about in the interpretation of the mechanism by which this definite state is chosen from amongst all the possible outcomes.
The job of a physicist is to describe Nature. General features, hypotheses and theories help to describe physics phenomena at a more abstract, fundamental level, and are sometimes tacitly assigned some sort of real existence; doing so appears to be of little harm in most of classical physics. However, missing any tangible connection to everyday experience, one better always bears in mind the descriptive nature of any efforts to grasp the quantum. And elementary particles interact in the quantum world, of course. When communicating the world of elementary particles to the general public, the Bayesian approach of an ever ongoing updating of the depiction of reality turns out to be virtually indispensable. The human experience of providing a series of increasingly better descriptions generates plenty of personal pleasures, for researchers as well as for amateurs. A suggestive analogy for improving our understanding of the world, even the seemingly paradoxical quantum world, may be found in recent insight into how congenitally blind children and young adults learn to see, after having received successful eye surgery.
Humans live in many different worlds, each of which has its own representation in mind space. The world of the scientist will be called the physical realms. The laws of physics are an integral part of the real world, and humans acquire a natural understanding of these laws without regard to any mathematical formulation. While the experimental physicist studies the behavior of the real world, the theoretical physicist develops and studies its representation in the mathematical world (i.e., mind space). It is not necessary to know the mathematical equations to be able to carry out a physical investigation. This can be performed through observation and recording of the data numerically, and using the processes of interpolation and extrapolation. Practicing physicists usually find that they must adopt the roles of both the theoretical as well as the experimental physicist to achieve the aims of an experiment. Observers play a vital role in physics. They become important when their state of motion changes, or when their presence affects the results of the experiment. The observer can be either animate or inanimate. Unlike inanimate observers, animate observers have access to mind space, which allows them to make decisions from collected information.
Most interpretations of quantum theory fail to provide a fundamental, complete, self-consistent account of nature describing physical reality itself, as opposed to merely yielding predictions about results of experiments and observations. A paradigm providing a self-consistent foundation for quantum theory and a description of the reality it refers to, generalized to a worldview, is a Quantum Paradigm, where ‘paradigm' is defined as structure of experiential reality. We assert that the fundamental obstruction in the quest for a quantum paradigm is the assumption of objectivity. The subject-object distinction, drawn within experience, has within the natural sciences degenerated into a dichotomy-an absolute split into separate realms-with scientists adopting the classical paradigm where the object pole of experience ("objective reality") can be studied independently from the subject pole ("the experiencer"), with a presupposition that this procedure yields a fundamental description of nature. In fact, the subjective is often eliminated altogether as a fundamental category, and reduced to an epiphenomenon of objective processes. We claim this objectivity assumption precludes a full comprehension and a paradox-free formulation of quantum theory. By challenging this presupposition, i.e. leaving the question open, a coherent understanding of quantum nature falls naturally into place, providing appropriate foundation for quantum theory and an associated world-view. The resulting Quantum Paradigm is "realist" in the sense that it provides a description of what is actually happening: namely the arena of all happening is Mind or Consciousness-from which mind and matter, subject and object, individual and collective, and time and space co-dependently arise. The subject matter of quantum theory then becomes the fundamental mind-function of distinction ("measurement"), resulting in information and its statistical correlations. The message of quantum mechanics is surprising: the basic components of objects-the particles, electrons, quarks, etc.-cannot be thought of as ‘self-existent'. The reality that they, and hence all objects, are components of is ‘empirical reality', of experience."The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine."-James Jeans Anomalous phenomena such as ESP and psychokinesis, collective consciousness, and synchronicity that are considered impossible in the context of the classical paradigm, fit naturally in, and can in turn provide evidence for the Quantum Paradigm. Spirituality and science are shown to be complementary approaches referring to the same reality, Mind, while each discipline retains its integrity. The Quantum Paradigm can be intellectually comprehended, as well as embodied: one can live in quantum reality. A good metaphor for this is "life as a dream": with no "real" objects as distinguished from experienced objects. Experience is "empty" of self-nature in the Buddhist sense, with everything interconnected and co-dependently arising. Experiencing the world by "embodying the Quantum Paradigm" is transformative, healing, and an antidote to alienation resulting from embodying the classical paradigm. Embodying the Quantum Paradigm and living in the Oneness of all creation can help humanity-increasingly lost in the materialism and individualism reinforced by our embodiment of the classical paradigm-and restore intimate connection and harmony with Spirit, Nature and fellow humans; we need such a transformation to survive and thrive in our technological society.