Abstract. This research article aims to deepen understanding of the uncertainty phenomenon and to develop the corresponding conceptual apparatus. To get this aim, comparative analysis of a row of studies of certainty and uncertainty, known from the history of scientific and philosophical thought, was completed. It was found that the classical-scientific concept of certainty grasps three essential features: 1) everything that really exists – the Universe or any of its parts – is in an actual state at every moment, having a set of properties with precise quantitative characteristics; 2) the primary, universal and only possible are the laws of motion, of being in general, which connect the past, present and future states of the existing in an exclusively necessary way; the conjunction 1) /\ 2) is equivalent to the statement that 3) the fate of the whole Universe, of everything in the Universe, is absolutely certain objectively. If we additionally assume the existence of the Laplace demon with the "intelligence sufficiently vast" to 4) exhaustively and accurately comprehend 1) and 2) and correctly operate with the knowledge gained, then for this superhuman subject the fate of anything will be quite obvious, in particular predictable. Given the explicated content of the classical-scientific concept of certainty, one can conclude that in the human world the content of the corresponding concept of uncertainty in the presence of 1) /\ 2) necessarily includes ¬4), that is, it is a conjunction1) /\ 2)/\ ¬4): let call this “uncertainty1”. A century ago, physical science discovered in the Universe a domain of chance, uncertainty, unpredictability, and probability, the existence of which does not depend on the knowledge and intelligence of a real person or even Laplace's demon: this is the "strange" quantum reality and, naturally, everything it significantly affects. The key here is the special quantum-mechanical concept of uncertainty. It is related to ¬1) directly, but more fully – it grasps in its content the conjunction ¬1) /\ 2) /\ ¬4, where ¬4 acquires an objective ground: let call it “uncertainty2”. The comprehension of uncertainty developed in newest synergetics includes negation of all the features inherent to classical certainty, including the primacy, universality, and uniqueness of the laws of nature, which absolutize necessity: in the general case, the conjunction ¬1) /\ ¬2) /\ ¬4 comes into effect here. Accordingly, it is reasonable to introduce a third special – synergetic – concept of uncertainty, let call it “uncertainty3”. It is argued that the situation of uncertainty, or the "perfect storm", in the contemporary world forms at least partly objectively, and not only due to a situational lack of information, someone's "insufficiently vast" intelligence, or conscious intention. To understand it, the classical-scientific concept of uncertainty1 is not sufficient; instead, it requires the involvement of contextually interpreted concepts of uncertainty2 and uncertainty3. The future is open and subject to only limited prediction, control, or management. For this purpose, it seems appropriate to use tools similar to nonlocal probability distribution functions in synergetics. Under conditions of instability, the complex global system, its elements and structure, innovations or changes are indeed created by numerous actors of completely different scales, values or interests. Even a spontaneous action of a minor group or an act of one person – a relatively small event, a random fluctuation – can cause some kind of “resonance” and a more or less large-scale bifurcation, a transition to one of many very different “branches” of further existence. Thus, further development of our world will depend not only on the greatest "structuring force" of today – the competition between the USA and China, but also on an effective "at an uncertain time and in an uncertain place" political, economic, military or some other fluctuation. A bifurcation it causes will probably lead to a more or less long-term stabilization of the world system with leadership either by the USA and, in general, the renewed West, or by China, part of the East and the South. However, these are only the clearest "branches" of future development: the emergence of some currently uncertain "black swan" cannot be ruled out.
Abstract. This research article aims to deepen understanding of the uncertainty phenomenon and to develop the corresponding conceptual apparatus. To get this aim, comparative analysis of a row of studies of certainty and uncertainty, known from the history of scientific and philosophical thought, was completed. It was found that the classical-scientific concept of certainty grasps three essential features: 1) everything that really exists – the Universe or any of its parts – is in an actual state at every moment, having a set of properties with precise quantitative characteristics; 2) the primary, universal and only possible are the laws of motion, of being in general, which connect the past, present and future states of the existing in an exclusively necessary way; the conjunction 1) /\ 2) is equivalent to the statement that 3) the fate of the whole Universe, of everything in the Universe, is absolutely certain objectively. If we additionally assume the existence of the Laplace demon with the "intelligence sufficiently vast" to 4) exhaustively and accurately comprehend 1) and 2) and correctly operate with the knowledge gained, then for this superhuman subject the fate of anything will be quite obvious, in particular predictable. Given the explicated content of the classical-scientific concept of certainty, one can conclude that in the human world the content of the corresponding concept of uncertainty in the presence of 1) /\ 2) necessarily includes ¬4), that is, it is a conjunction1) /\ 2)/\ ¬4): let call this “uncertainty1”. A century ago, physical science discovered in the Universe a domain of chance, uncertainty, unpredictability, and probability, the existence of which does not depend on the knowledge and intelligence of a real person or even Laplace's demon: this is the "strange" quantum reality and, naturally, everything it significantly affects. The key here is the special quantum-mechanical concept of uncertainty. It is related to ¬1) directly, but more fully – it grasps in its content the conjunction ¬1) /\ 2) /\ ¬4, where ¬4 acquires an objective ground: let call it “uncertainty2”. The comprehension of uncertainty developed in newest synergetics includes negation of all the features inherent to classical certainty, including the primacy, universality, and uniqueness of the laws of nature, which absolutize necessity: in the general case, the conjunction ¬1) /\ ¬2) /\ ¬4 comes into effect here. Accordingly, it is reasonable to introduce a third special – synergetic – concept of uncertainty, let call it “uncertainty3”. It is argued that the situation of uncertainty, or the "perfect storm", in the contemporary world forms at least partly objectively, and not only due to a situational lack of information, someone's "insufficiently vast" intelligence, or conscious intention. To understand it, the classical-scientific concept of uncertainty1 is not sufficient; instead, it requires the involvement of contextually interpreted concepts of uncertainty2 and uncertainty3. The future is open and subject to only limited prediction, control, or management. For this purpose, it seems appropriate to use tools similar to nonlocal probability distribution functions in synergetics. Under conditions of instability, the complex global system, its elements and structure, innovations or changes are indeed created by numerous actors of completely different scales, values or interests. Even a spontaneous action of a minor group or an act of one person – a relatively small event, a random fluctuation – can cause some kind of “resonance” and a more or less large-scale bifurcation, a transition to one of many very different “branches” of further existence. Thus, further development of our world will depend not only on the greatest "structuring force" of today – the competition between the USA and China, but also on an effective "at an uncertain time and in an uncertain place" political, economic, military or some other fluctuation. A bifurcation it causes will probably lead to a more or less long-term stabilization of the world system with leadership either by the USA and, in general, the renewed West, or by China, part of the East and the South. However, these are only the clearest "branches" of future development: the emergence of some currently uncertain "black swan" cannot be ruled out.
Today, many concepts from the dictionaries of academic psychology have entered the language of everyday communication. Perhaps the most common are the concepts of «subjective» and «objective». In many textbooks of psychology, «objective» is understood as something that belongs to the object itself, something that does not depend on the subject. The objective is opposed to the subjective-personal. Experimental research in the field of quantum physics questioned the division of the world into an impartial «objective reality» and its «subjective» (not impartial, biased) reflection, which provoked a crisis in this field of knowledge and the methodology of science as a whole. The main methodological problems of psychology are the question of the place of the mental in nature; on the relationship of mental and material phenomena, on the possibilities of human cognition - questions that also arose in the depths of quantum physics and were predetermined by the internal logic of their development. An excursion into quantum physics was necessary, firstly, for a deep understanding that reality is given to us in our sensations, perceptions, ideas and mental constructs (this was evidenced by the so-called «double slit experiment» and its interpretations) and we cannot say anything about reality as it is «in itself»; secondly, the realization that the foundations on which our knowledge is built differ from those in quantum physics. Currently, there is a dichotomy between material (physical) and conceptual reality. Thus, the principle of locality, which professes ordinary consciousness and according to which specific objects occupy a specific place in time and space, contradicts the principle of non-locality, according to which isolated systems do not exist at all and every particle of the universe is in «instantaneous» communication with all other particles. The world is created from the same quantum substance and it is impossible to say that one is the cause of the other. (This statement implies, in particular, a rethinking of the «principle of determinism» which requires the establishment of unambiguous causal relationships). The reality in which we live is not quantum, our language and stereotypes of thinking do not correspond to the nature of the phenomena described by quantum physics. It is about the deep properties of matter. Personally, I got the impression that the deeper you plunge into the world of atomic and subatomic, the more the outlines of the specific, material world familiar to us become blurred and the thinner the line between the physical and conceptual world, between the material and the spiritual becomes. The purpose of this article is to define the concepts of "objective" and "subjective" based on the analysis of achievements in quantum physics in the context of psychology.
There are a lot of factors determining our process of defining and describing the nature. Our concept of information is one of these factors. When we consider the nature we are within, the points we have discussed are the concepts like in quest of the universe, infinity, space and absoluteness. Mankind regards the nature as the object of his actions, acts and activities because of perceiving himself within the nature. He abides by the concept of nature and its laws. However, he sometimes mistakes his own laws for the order of nature and claims that his knowledge is absolute laws of nature. He realizes that the concept of nature varies in time when he questions his concept of knowledge. \nWhen the natural science was examined within the philosophy of science in the 20th century, some dilemmas emerged. Namely, as technology gradually improves, the opportunity to experiment and to observe micro and macro scales has arisen. \nThe thesis is based on the exposition of methods, used to improve quantum physics, and the expression of the conception of natural science through the emergent table. As philosophical basics of quantum physics are commented, the history of classical physics and its methods has been analyzed. These two paradigms have been scrutinized fields, such as experiment, observation, mathematics and logic. Similarities and differences have been found. So, one of questions of the philosophy of science, the question about what the method of scientific examination is, has been given a comparative answer. As a result of the comparison between the methods of two paradigms, it has been found out that the source of contradictions, such as continuity-discontinuity, certainty-uncertainty and causality-probability requires to examine the method, instead of examining the world, the interpretation of the world or its meaning.
The aim of the article is to analyze the ontological foundations of quantum mechanics and the relationship of various interpretations of quantum mechanics with the question of truth in scientific knowledge. The theoretical material (various interpretations of quantum mechanics) was analyzed. The research methods were analysis, comparative-historical and institutional approaches. On the basis of the study, it can be concluded that physicists are only able to predict the probabilities of physical phenomena or processes, without any knowledge of the structure of entity in itself. The study helps to complement the theoretical picture of the ontology of quantum mechanics and to get an idea about the development prospects of the methodology of physical sciences. We should not ascribe properties that are unobservable in experience to the entity because science can truly interpret only the representation of entity in itself in experience and the ways of dealing with it, not future events or possible states of the entity. Otherwise, science “slides” down to the level of dialectical (rhetorical) exercises based not on true premises, but on generally accepted or “authoritative” biases, which gives room to extreme forms of relativism and takes natural scientists away from studying nature to inventing empirically unsupported hypotheses. When, in accordance with the Cartesian ontology, the scientist assumes that the entity is as the “subject” observes it (that is, the “reflection” of the entity in consciousness is identified with entity in itself), this assumption leads the scientist to attempts to “scientifically” describe the future events or the possible states of the entity. The criterion for the truth of a scientific theory put forward by Einstein in his dispute with Bohr remains a fundamentally unattainable ideal. Cognition of nature is probabilistically and fundamentally incomplete since a person can consciously comprehend natural phenomena only within the framework of their representation in the existing being. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is due to the impossibility of knowing things as they exist by themselves, that is, as they exist outside of representation in the mind of the observer. This does not mean that physical entities did not exist before their knowledge: they existed potentially, but were not valid for the observer, that is, conscious. Quantum physics is as incomplete as any other physical theory when compared with an unattainable ideal, but this fact does not negate its truth for modern scientists since quantum theory is based on the results of verified experiments.
Quantum mechanics is usually defined in terms of some loosely connected axioms and rules. Such a foundation is far from the beauty of, e.g., the `principles' underlying classical mechanics. Motivated, in addition, by notorious interpretation problems, there have been numerous attempts to modify or `complete' quantum mechanics. A first attempt was based on so-called hidden variables; its proponents essentially tried to expel the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. More recent proposals intend to complete quantum mechanics not within mechanics proper but on a `higher (synthetic) level'; by means of a combination with gravitation theory (R Penrose), with quantum information theory (C M Caves, C A Fuchs) or with psychology and brain science (H P Stapp). I think it is fair to say that in each case the combination is with a subject that, per se , suffers from a very limited understanding that is even more severe than that of quantum mechanics. This was acceptable, though, if it could convincingly be argued that scientific progress desperately needs to join forces. Quantum mechanics of a closed system was a beautiful and well understood theory with its respective state being presented as a point on a deterministic trajectory in Liouville space---not unlike the motion of a classical N -particle system in its 6N -dimensional phase-space. Unfortunately, we need an inside and an outside view, we need an external reference frame, we need an observer. This unavoidable partition is the origin of most of the troubles we have with quantum mechanics. A pragmatic solution is introduced in the form of so-called measurement postulates: one of the various incompatible properties of the system under consideration is supposed to be realized (i.e. to become a fact, to be defined without fundamental dispersion) based on `instantaneous' projections within some externally selected measurement basis. As a result, the theory becomes essentially statistical rather than deterministic; furthermore there is an asymmetry between the observed and the observing. This is the point where consciousness may come in. Complemented by an introduction and several appendices, Henry Stapp's book consists essentially of three parts: theory, implications, and new developments. The theory part gives a very readable account of the Copenhagen interpretation, some aspects of a psychophysical theory, and, eventually, hints towards a quantum foundation of the brain--mind connection. The next part, `implications', summarizes some previous attempts to bridge the gap between the working rules of quantum mechanics and their possible consequences for our understanding of this world (Pauli, Everett, Bohm, Heisenberg). The last section, `new developments', dwells on some ideas about the conscious brain and its possible foundation on quantum mechanics. The book is an interesting and, in part, fascinating contribution to a field that continues to be a companion to `practical' quantum mechanics since its very beginning. It is doubtful whether such types of `quantum ontologies' will ever become (empirically) testable; right now one can hardly expect more than to be offered some consistent `grand picture', which the reader may find more or less acceptable or even rewarding. Many practicing quantum physicists, though, will remain unimpressed. The shift from synthetic ontology to analytic ontology is the foundation of the present work. This means that fundamental wholes are being partitioned into their ontologically subordinate components by means of `events'. The actual event, in turn, is an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state describing the quantum universe. The new state then defines the tendencies associated with the next actual event. To avoid infinite regression in terms of going from one state of tendencies to the next, consciousness is there to give these events a special `feel', to provide a status of `intrinsic actuality'. The brain of an alert human observer is similar in an important way to a quantum detection device: it can amplify small signals to large macroscopic effects. On the other hand, actual events are not postulated to occur exclusively in brains. They are more generally associated with the formation of records. Records are necessarily part of the total state of the universe: it is obvious that the state of the universe cannot undergo a Schrödinger dynamics and at the same time record its own history. `The full universe consists therefore of an exceedingly thin veneer of relatively sluggish, directly observable properties resting on a vast ocean or rapidly fluctuating unobservable ones.' The present ideas also bear on how the world should be seen to develop. While conventional cosmology encounters problems as to how to define the intial conditions, which would enter the governing equations of motion, here `the boundary conditions are set not at some initial time, but gradually by a sequence of acts that imposes a sequence of constraints. After any sequence of acts there remains a collection of possible worlds, some of which will be eliminated by the next act.' Connected with those acts is `meaning': there has always been some speculation about the special significance of local properties in our understanding of the world. One could argue that correlations (even the quantum correlations found, e.g., in the EPR-experiments) were as real as anything else. But also Stapp stresses the special role of locality: the `local observable properties, or properties similar to them are the natural, and perhaps exclusive, carriers of meaning in the quantum universe. From this point of view the quantum universe tends to create meaning.' This sounds like an absolute concept: meaning not with respect to something else, but defined intrinsically---not easy to digest. The role of consciousness in the developing quantum universe requires more attention. `The causal irrelevance of our thoughts within classical physics constitutes a serious deficiency of that theory, construed as a description of reality.' This is taken to be entirely different within quantum mechanics. `The core idea of quantum mechanics is to describe our activities as knowledge-seeking and knowledge-using agents.' `21st century science does not reduce human beings to mechanical automata. Rather it elevates human beings to agents whose free choices can, according to the known laws, actually influence their behaviour.' An example with respect to perception is discussed: `Why, when we look at a triangle, do we experience three lines joined at three points and not some pattern of neuron firings?' The brain `does not convert an actual whole triangle into some jumbled set of particle motions; rather it converts a concatenation of separate external events into the actualization of some single integrated pattern of neural activity that is congruent to the perceived whole triangle.' How convincing is this proposal? It is hard to tell. I think Henry Stapp did a good job, but there are tight limitations to any such endeavour. Quantum mechanics is often strange indeed, but it also gives rise to our classical world around us. For the emergence of classicality jumps and measurement projections (the basic phenomena connected with those fundamental events of choice) are not needed. Therefore, I doubt whether the explanation of the evolution of our world really allows (or requires) that much free choice. On the other hand, most scientist will agree that empirical science was not possible without free will: we could not ask independent questions if this asking was part of a deterministic trajectory. The fact that the result of a quantum measurement is indeterminate (within given probabilities) does certainly not explain free will. How about the type of measurment? The experimentalist will have to assume that he can select the pertinent observable within some limits. But given a certain design the so-called pointer basis (producing stable measurement results) is no longer a matter of free choice. `The main theme of classical physics is that we live in a clocklike universe.' Today it is often assumed that the universe was a big (quantum-) computer or a cellular automaton. Many would be all too happy to leave that rather restrictive picture behind. But where to go? Stapp suggests giving consciousness a prominent role: `The most profound alteration of the fundamental principles was to bring consciousness of human beings into the basic structure of the physical theory.' How far we are able to go in this direction will depend on the amount of concrete research results becoming available to support this view.
This article reveals the ontological and ideological aspect of the principle of uncertainty based on a study of scientific and philosophical ideas of scientists and naturalists. Раскрывается онтологический и мировоззренческий аспекты принципа неопределенности на основе исследования научно-философских естествоиспытателей. Розкривається онтологічний та світоглядний аспекти принципу невизначеності на основі дослідження науково-філософських ідей природознавців.
In a deterministic theory, one can deduce the state of the universe at any one time from the dynamical laws that govern its evolution and its state at any other time.In particular, one can deduce from the conditions that obtained at some early boundary condition for the universe, its state at all subsequent times.It is a piece of well-received philosophical common sense that there is no room in a deterministic theory for objective probabilities.Arguments will be given below that this piece of philosophical common sense is mistaken, and that a probability measure over the space of physically possible trajectories is an indispensable component of any theory -deterministic or otherwise -that can be used as a basis for prediction or receive confirmation from the evidence.Phase space is the central representational space in physics.It is the space within which all of the states pertaining to a system are represented, and it encodes all of the general information that we have about those states.To take an obvious example (less obvious examples will be given below) the fact that a pair of quantities are represented by different dimensions in phase space encodes the fact that they represent separate degrees of freedom.Physically possible histories are represented by trajectories through phase space and in a deterministic theory, when dealing with a closed system, there is (no more than) one trajectory through each point.Since the universe as a whole is the only truly closed system, this means there is one trajectory through each point in the phase space of the universe.Probabilities may be invoked in applications of theory, when the state of a system or the values of external variables are not known with full precision, but they are eliminable given complete knowledge.And they don't appear in the statement of the laws.The laws serve simply to identify the physically allowable trajectories.About Newtonian dynamics, Laplace famously said "given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective situation of the beings who compose it -an intelligence sufficiently vast to submit these data to analysis -it would embrace in the same formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the lightest atom; for it, nothing would be uncertain and the future, and the past, would be present to its eyes."ii It is a short step from this to the idea that probabilities invoked in classical contexts are subjective rather than objective.If they represent anything, it is facts about our epistemic states, not facts about the world.iii Popper, and Lewis, and other influential figures have endorsed this view, categorically rejecting any role for objective probabilities indeterministic contexts.In Popper's words: