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.
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.
An adequate physical theory requires something more than just mathematical equations and rules. It needs a philosophical conceptual framework as well. Something special that allows theoretical statements to be connected with human experiences. In classical mechanics the interpretive framework that ties the mathematics to experience does not affect our ontological notion. The basic idea of the classically conceived connection between the physically and psychologically describes aspects of nature is carry-over from the planetary dynamics that was the origin of classical mechanics: the locations of objects are regarded as being directly knowable, without any effects on those objects. In quantum mechanics the process of acquiring information, or knowledge pertaining to the location of that object affects the state that is being probed. This fact changes a status of observer. Now observer is an active part of the acquiring information scheme. New idea of observer requires new model. Observer consists of several parts: object+ apparatus+ environment+ consciousness of researcher. One of the most important function of consciousness is selection of conceptual interpretive framework for mathematical structure that ties theory and experiment. The results of experiments make sense only in appointed interpretative paradigm.
The primitive connection between mathematics and the physical world make use of everyday experience at the macroscale. With quantum phenomena, one encounters a regime far removed from ordinary experience. One relies on laboratory experiments to define the quantum world; the experimental process refines ordinary everyday experiments such as for counting and logic. One cannot expect to find results that appeal to ‘‘common sense.’’ Here, one must make a choice as to whether the new situation can be described by existing mathematical infrastructure or it requires the invention of new infrastructure. In either case, one must set up a mathematical system, which exists only in the human mind, in order to describe the system of nature. That is, ‘‘mathematics belongs to and exists in the human mind whereas nature belongs to God.’’ Mathematics and nature have separate but intertwined existences. As will become evident later, one must allow for the possibility that human observation (a physical process, not a mathematical one) can affect the state of the natural system.
The mind of man is central to the structure and functioning of the physical world. Modern physical theory indicates that the mind stands in a relationship of equals to the physical world. Both are fundamental, neither can be reduced to the other, and both require each other for their full understanding. This thesis is at odds with the view of the universe found in Newtonian mechanics as well as the generally held view among contemporary physicists of modern physical theory. Since the Renaissance, people have come to understand a great deal about the physical world, and they have gained significant control over it. This increased power over the physical world has occurred hand in hand with the assumption that the structure and functioning of the physical world is essentially independent from human cognition. According to this assumption, if a person’s cognitive capacity did not exist, the functioning of the physical world would not be fundamentally altered. This last statement is not in fact correct, and modern physical theory, and even fundamentals underlying Newtonian mechanics, provide evidence to attest to this. Nonetheless, contemporary physicists for the most part do not see that the relationship of human cognition to the physical world is radically altered in their own modern theory, theory that is supported by a great deal of empirical data. Instead, attempting to preserve the thesis that the structure and functioning of the physical world is independent of the mind while on a practical level relying on modern theory that contradicts this thesis, physicists have placed themselves in the position of wondering at times exactly what is the nature of the physical world at the same time they obtain experimental results concerning the physical world that can only be labeled astonishing in their precision and the scope of their implications. Modern physical theory consists of three main components: 1) the special and general theories of relativity; 2) quantum mechanics; and 3) statistical mechanics. There are very successful theories that have been developed on the basis of these three bedrock areas. An example is quantum electrodynamics. But these theories owe their conceptual foundation to the three components mentioned. The basic issues at the core of these three components also are expressed in these later theories. In addition, there are new unresolved issues of a fundamental nature concerning the conceptual integrity of these later theories that do not apply to quantum mechanics, relativity theory, and statistical mechanics. Quantum mechanics and relativity theory are areas I have written about for over twelve years. The nature of statistical mechanics has also been of interest to me during this time. But when I took a serious look in 1993 at Tolman’s (1938) The Principles of Statistical Mechanics, it became clear that the mind is linked to the physical world in statistical mechanics, a relationship I had found earlier in both relativity theory and quantum mechanics. It was after reading Tolman’s justification of the method of statistical mechanics in the original that I decided to write this book. When I found that the three components of modern physical theory all pointed to the same relationship between mind and the physical world, it became clear that the fundamental isolation of the mind from the physical world that has characterized our experience since the development of Newtonian mechanics is unfounded. Based on empirically supported principles of modern physical theory, I determined that the appropriate assumption for one’s experience, that the mind is linked to the physical world, could be stated with confidence. The impact of this change in assumption concerning the relationship of man to the cosmos in modern physical theory will find its way into our everyday experience. It will perhaps have no greater effect than in reducing the sense of isolation of man from the world that has characterized modern existence.
This chapter begins by explaining why physics is the fundamental of all natural sciences. Throughout most its history, atoms were hardly the center of attention in physics. Once called natural philosophy, physics originated in the study of the motion of inanimate objects. From those studies emerged a body of knowledge, including various natural laws, that today we call ‘classical’ physics. Newton's laws of motion, the basis of the science of mechanics, come to mind, as does his law of universal gravitation. These laws are obeyed by objects that in some sense are ‘large’ and, in fact, the laws were discovered after careful observation of the behavior of such objects. The discussion then turns to the focus of the book—the quantum world—where the laws of physics turn out to be different from the laws of classical physics used to explain phenomena in the macroscopic world of everyday life. The book discusses a number of mostly recent experiments on quantum mechanical foundations, most of them involving light at the level of a few photons—sometimes only one.
Copenhagen is the perfect setting for our discussion of matter and information. We have been charged ‘to explore the current concept of matter from scientific, philosophical, and theological perspectives’. The essential foundation for this work is the output of the intense intellectual struggles that took place here in Copenhagen during the twenties, principally between Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and Wolfgang Pauli. Those struggles replaced the then-prevailing Newtonian idea of matter as ‘solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, moveable particles’ with a new concept that allowed, and in fact demanded, entry into the laws governing the motion of matter of the consequences of decisions made by human subjects. This change in the laws swept away the meaningless billiard-ball universe, and replaced it with a universe in which we human beings, by means of our intentional effort, can make a difference in how the ‘matter’ in our bodies behaves. The role of mind in nature Unfortunately, most of the prevailing descriptions of quantum theory tend to emphasize puzzles and paradoxes in a way that makes philosophers, theologians, and even non-physicist scientists leery of actually using in any deep way the profound changes in our understanding of human beings in nature wrought by the quantum revolution. Yet, properly presented, quantum mechanics is thoroughly in line with our deep human intuitions. It is the 300 years of indoctrination with basically false ideas about how nature works that now makes puzzling a process that is completely in line with normal human intuition. I therefore begin with a non-paradox-laden description of the quantum universe and the place of our minds within it.
Physicists usually admit a rather naive concept of physical reality: it is the object they are investigating using experiments understood as actions in the real world.in theoretical physics, the object of investigation is not the real world itself but its mathematical description which is considered as describing physical reality as exactly as possible.i present arguments from philosophy of science and from recent work in the theory of gravitational physics which indicate a possibility to defend also antirealistic views, and clarify in which sense both standpoints can be viable.