How to unite scientific zest for universal causation with ubiquitous randomness is a profound question. Nearly a century ago quantum physics and then genetics were forced to accept both concepts as two independent realities which seemingly contradict one another. Here we are not going deep into philosophical considerations about the essence of the material world and science. However, it is difficult to deny that randomness, or in other words uncertainty, looks like a serious challenge to universal causation and science has to moderate the importance of this traditional core principle. Surprisingly such an uneasy shift did not significantly reduce the capability of science to describe and predict. Even more surprisingly this fundamental change went relatively smoothly and did not dramatically affect the “daily business” of science. This does not mean of course that science can still operate in a purely Laplacian deterministic framework. A steady transition to a new scientific perception of the world is inevitable and ongoing.
How to unite scientific zest for universal causation with ubiquitous randomness is a profound question. Nearly a century ago quantum physics and then genetics were forced to accept both concepts as two independent realities which seemingly contradict one another. Here we are not going deep into philosophical considerations about the essence of the material world and science. However, it is difficult to deny that randomness, or in other words uncertainty, looks like a serious challenge to universal causation and science has to moderate the importance of this traditional core principle. Surprisingly such an uneasy shift did not significantly reduce the capability of science to describe and predict. Even more surprisingly this fundamental change went relatively smoothly and did not dramatically affect the “daily business” of science. This does not mean of course that science can still operate in a purely Laplacian deterministic framework. A steady transition to a new scientific perception of the world is inevitable and ongoing.
The classical deterministic worldview that dominated science from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century has been profoundly challenged by developments in modern physics and biology. Quantum mechanics has revealed that indeterminacy and probability are not merely epistemic limitations, but intrinsic features of physical reality. At the same time, evolutionary biology has shown that random genetic variation, filtered by natural selection, is the fundamental driver of biological diversity and adaptation. This article explores the conceptual parallel between quantum indeterminacy and evolutionary randomness, not as a reduction of biology to physics, but as an epistemological reflection on how stability and order emerge from probabilistic processes across different levels of organization. By examining emergence, contingency, historical irreversibility, and the limits of prediction, the paper argues that determinism is best understood as a scale-dependent approximation rather than a foundational ontological principle. The absence of finality in nature does not imply chaos or nihilism, but invites a renewed philosophical understanding of explanation, responsibility, and scientific humility in a probabilistic universe.
In classical physics there is, in accordance with common sense, an objective world ‘out there’. That world evolves in a clear and deterministic way, being governed by precisely formulated mathematical equations. This is as true for the theories of Maxwell and Einstein as it is for the original Newtonian scheme. Physical reality is taken to exist independently of ourselves; and exactly how the classical world ‘is’ is not affected by how we might choose to look at it. Moreover, our bodies and our brains are themselves to be part of that world. They, also, are viewed as evolving according to the same precise and deterministic classical equations. All our actions are to be fixed by these equations - no matter how we might feel that our conscious wills may be influencing how we behave. Such a picture appears to lie at the background of most serious 1 philosophical arguments concerned with the nature of reality, of our conscious perceptions, and of our apparent free will. Some people might have an uncomfortable feeling that there should also be a role for quantum theory - that fundamental but disturbing scheme of things which, in the first quarter of this century, arose out of observations of subtle discrepancies between the actual behaviour of the world and the descriptions of classical physics. To many, the term ‘quantum theory’ evokes merely some vague concept of an ‘uncertainty principle’, which, at the level of particles, atoms or molecules, forbids precision in our descriptions and yields merely probabilistic behaviour. Actually, quantum descriptions are very precise, as we shall see, although radically different from the familiar classical ones. Moreover, we shall find, despite a common view to the contrary, that probabilities do not arise at the minute quantum level of particles, atoms, or molecules - those evolve deterministically - but, seemingly, via some mysterious larger-scale action connected with the emergence of a classical world that we can consciously perceive. We must try to understand this, and how quantum theory forces us to change our view of physical reality.
In this chapter, I offer some personal reflections about the nature of reality, shaped by my work as a quantum physicist, my experimentation with psychedelic drugs during the 1960s, and my more recent studies of modern cognitive science. Traditionally, questions about the essential nature of reality are asked by philosophers. In the twentieth century, these questions were asked for the first time by scientists as well. During the first three decades of the century, the exploration of the atomic and subatomic world brought physicists in contact with a strange and unexpected reality that shattered the foundations of their worldview and forced them to think in entirely new ways. Quantum physics showed scientists “a new reality,” and from that time on, the nature of reality became a popular subject of discussion not only in philosophy but also in science. In recent decades, cognitive scientists took another radical step in the scientific conception of the nature of reality. They asserted that the features of our ordinary, everyday reality are not features of an independently existing world, but are created in the very process of perception. In a way this generalizes the influence of the act of perception on the perceived object, which was famously analyzed in quantum physics by Werner Heisenberg, to everyday perception. In other words, even our everyday reality is just one of many alternate realities.
Modern physical science has moved a considerable distance from the deterministic materialism of the nineteenth century. Even then, the inclusion of fields (gravitational, magnetic, and electric) complemented the massy, solid atoms in making up the world-picture of physics. But in the twentieth century, science replaced the earlier ontology entirely. Quantum mechanics, the crowning achievement of modern physics, has re-opened ages-old questions about the nature of reality, causation, and the connection between consciousness and the external world. The fundamental ground of modern physics is at the epistemological level — what we can know about physical systems is basic, rather than an onto-logical account of the world as it ‘really is.’ 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.
Despite the extraordinary successes the two great bastions of 20th century science (Quantum Theory and General Relativity) are troubled with serious conceptual and mathematical difficulties. As a result, further growth of fundamental science is at stake. Is this the end of science? Optimistic answer is ``NOT''! In this work, it is argued that science must continue its cruise, but with anew strategy -- a thorough recourse into the grass-root level working of science is inevitable. In fact, our conventional scientific methods are based upon ordinary sense perception, which keeps the outer physical universe as a separate entity, that is something quite independent of the observer. Basically, it is the observer -- the knower (human mind) -- which makes perception possible. It makes a person or scientist to recognize or refute the existence of an object or a phenomenon. It is also tempted to evince that working of human mind is epistemically scientific and can, in principle, be completely deciphered. It's inclusion in scientific theories, although tedious, can certainly spark a revolution in our understanding of nature and reality.