Quantum mechanics is a solidly founded mathematical theory, but it has yet to be explained in first conceptual principles. The most obvious aberration to explanation that quantum mechanics has is interference and coherence. We simply do not understand why the preparation of a quantum mechanical system must not allow knowledge of path in order to display interference effects. We present the first principles of the information interpretation which provide a proper conceptual foundation of quantum mechanics and also lead to an explanation of interference and coherence. The Information Interpretation In the history of the information interpretation of quantum mechanics there are many authors 1,2,3 whom argued that quantum mechanical systems are information, but these presentations of the interpretation have not been able to fully explain the demands of coherence and interference. We argue here that the other interpretations have lacked a “second principle ” that could properly clarify the issue. Specifically, they have lacked a principle that much like the principle of relativity theory is founded on a reasoning of consistency of all perspectives. The earliest of interpretations would all have presented the same underlying argument, that quantum mechanical systems are information, and some formalize this in the manner of truth value to proposition.
Quantum mechanics is a solidly founded mathematical theory, but it has yet to be explained in first conceptual principles. The most obvious aberration to explanation that quantum mechanics has is interference and coherence. We simply do not understand why the preparation of a quantum mechanical system must not allow knowledge of path in order to display interference effects. We present the first principles of the information interpretation which provide a proper conceptual foundation of quantum mechanics and also lead to an explanation of interference and coherence. The Information Interpretation In the history of the information interpretation of quantum mechanics there are many authors 1,2,3 whom argued that quantum mechanical systems are information, but these presentations of the interpretation have not been able to fully explain the demands of coherence and interference. We argue here that the other interpretations have lacked a “second principle ” that could properly clarify the issue. Specifically, they have lacked a principle that much like the principle of relativity theory is founded on a reasoning of consistency of all perspectives. The earliest of interpretations would all have presented the same underlying argument, that quantum mechanical systems are information, and some formalize this in the manner of truth value to proposition.
The principle aim of this dissertation is to investigate the philosophical application of quantum information theory to interpretational issues regarding the theory of quantum mechanics. Recently, quantum information theory has emerged as a potential source for such an interpretation. The main question with which this dissertation will be concerned is whether or not an information-theoretic interpretation can serve as a conceptually acceptable interpretation of quantum mechanics. It will be argued that some of the more obvious approaches - that quantum information theory shows us that ultimately the world is made of information, and quantum Bayesianism - fail as philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics. However, the information-theoretic approach of Clifton, Bub, and Halvorson introduces Einstein's distinction between principle theories and constructive theories, arguing that quantum mechanics is best understood as an information-theoretic principle theory. While I argue that this particular approach fails, it does offer a viable new philosophical role for information theory. Specifically, an investigation of interpretationally successful principle theories such as Newtonian mechanics, special relativity, and general relativity, shows that the particular principles employed are necessary as constitutive elements of a framework which partially defines the basic explanatory concepts of space, time, and motion. Without such constitutive principles as preconditions for empirical meaning, scientific progress is hampered. It is argued that the philosophical issues in quantum mechanics stem from an analogous conceptual crisis. On the basis of this comparison, the best strategy for resolving these problems is to apply a similar sort of conceptual analysis to quantum mechanics so as to provide an appropriate set of constitutive principles clarifying the conceptual issues at stake. It is further argued that quantum information theory is ideally placed as a novel conceptual framework from which to conduct this analysis.
The objective of Chapter 4 is to give an overview of the basic concepts of quantum mechanics and their interpretation. Thus this chapter functions as a theoretical preparation for a better understanding of the quantum world and of the knowledge measurement process. First, the terminology of the word “quantum” and its impact on the derivation of the term “knowledge quantum” is explained in Chapter 4.1. Then, the discussion moves to the historical development of quantum mechanics. The key issues and current research field for quantum theory will be given in an overview. The following chapters show some insights into key quantum mechanical concepts such as slit-experiments, wave-particle duality, the Copenhagener interpretation, and quantum probability. Chapter 4 closes with an explanation of the Uncertainty Principle of Werner Heisenberg, especially since the Uncertainty Principle is used to derive the knowledge measurement process through the method of analogical reasoning. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
An overview of the conceptuality interpretation of quantum mechanics is presented, along with an explanation of how it sheds light on key quantum and relativistic phenomena. In particular, we show how the interpretation clarifies Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, wave function-based and entanglement-based non-locality, interference effects resulting from the superposition principle, delayed choice experiments, quantum measurements, the mechanism of quantization, the reason why entities can establish entanglement bonds and the statistical behaviour of indistinguishable entities. We further argue that the interpretation can also elucidate relativistic effects, focusing on time dilation. Finally, we suggest that it can provide a novel and challenging perspective on evolution. This article is the second in a two-part series devoted to exploring this promising approach to reality. The first part, which serves as a companion to this discussion, outlines the intellectual trajectory leading from the first applications of quantum notions to human cognition to the bold rethinking suggested by the conceptuality interpretation.This article is part of the theme issue 'Quantum theory and topology in models of decision making (Part 1)'.
Following the view of several leading quantum-information theorists, this paper argues that quantum phenomena, including those exhibiting quantum correlations (one of their most enigmatic features), and quantum mechanics may be best understood in quantum-informational terms. It also argues that this understanding is implicit already in the work of some among the founding figures of quantum mechanics, in particular W. Heisenberg and N. Bohr, half a century before quantum information theory emerged and confirmed, and gave a deeper meaning to, to their insights. These insights, I further argue, still help this understanding, which is the main reason for considering them here. My argument is grounded in a particular interpretation of quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics, in part arising from these insights as well. This interpretation is based on the concept of reality without realism, RWR (which places the reality considered beyond representation or even conception), introduced by this author previously, in turn, following Heisenberg and Bohr, and in response to quantum information theory.
Since the beginning, quantum mechanics has raised major foundational and interpretative problems. Foundational research has been an important factor in the development of quantum cryptography, quantum information theory and, perhaps one day, practical quantum computers. Many believe that, in turn, quantum information theory has bearing on foundational research. This is largely related to the so-called epistemic view of quantum states, which maintains that the state vector represents information on a system and has led to the suggestion that quantum theory needs no interpretation. I will argue that this and related approaches fail to take into consideration two different explanatory functions of quantum mechanics, namely that of accounting for classically unexplainable correlations between classical phenomena and that of explaining the microscopic structure of classical objects. If interpreting quantum mechanics means answering the question, “How can the world be for quantum mechanics to be true?”, there seems to be no way around it.
Since the beginning, quantum mechanics has raised major foundational and interpretative problems. Foundational research has been an important factor in the development of quantum cryptography, quantum information theory and, perhaps one day, practical quantum computers. Many believe that, in turn, quantum information theory has bearing on foundational research. This is largely related to the so-called epistemic view of quantum states, which maintains that the state vector represents information on a system and has led to the suggestion that quantum theory needs no interpretation. I will argue that this and related approaches fail to take into consideration two different explanatory functions of quantum mechanics, namely that of accounting for classically unexplainable correlations between classical phenomena and that of explaining the microscopic structure of classical objects. If interpreting quantum mechanics means answering the question, "How can the world be for quantum mechanics to be true?", there seems to be no way around it.