In this paper, I argue that the wrong notion of the “world ” (I called it the “unicorn-world”) has to be replaced by the “epistemologically different worlds ” (EDWs). Working in the unicorn-world in the last century, the physicists have tried to solve some pseudo-problems of quantum mechanics like non-locality and entanglement with pseudo-alternatives like multiverse approach and decoherence. EDWs perspective clarifies many notions from quantum theory, in particular, and physics, in general. I. The unicorn-world vs. the epistemologically different worlds269 There are some key elements that have framed human thinking from the beginning, the human subject, the world (or universe) and the perceptual-conceptual frameworks through which the subject observes-conceives the world. Directly correlated to these key elements there are three concepts of unity which have played a major role in science and philosophy, the unity of self (consciousness), the unity of the world, and the unity of knowledge and of science. As I showed in Vacariu (2005) the assumption of the unity of the world or uni-verse represents a major error in human thinking and this error has
In this paper, I argue that the wrong notion of the “world ” (I called it the “unicorn-world”) has to be replaced by the “epistemologically different worlds ” (EDWs). Working in the unicorn-world in the last century, the physicists have tried to solve some pseudo-problems of quantum mechanics like non-locality and entanglement with pseudo-alternatives like multiverse approach and decoherence. EDWs perspective clarifies many notions from quantum theory, in particular, and physics, in general. I. The unicorn-world vs. the epistemologically different worlds269 There are some key elements that have framed human thinking from the beginning, the human subject, the world (or universe) and the perceptual-conceptual frameworks through which the subject observes-conceives the world. Directly correlated to these key elements there are three concepts of unity which have played a major role in science and philosophy, the unity of self (consciousness), the unity of the world, and the unity of knowledge and of science. As I showed in Vacariu (2005) the assumption of the unity of the world or uni-verse represents a major error in human thinking and this error has
This paper re-opens the debate on the failure of quantum mechanics to provide an understandable view of micro-reality. A critique is offered of the commonly accepted ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of a theory that is only a mathematical approach to the level of reality characterized by atoms and electrons. This critique is based on the oldest approach to thinking about nature for over 2500 years, known as Natural Philosophy. Quantum mechanics (QM) was developed over the first quarter of the 20th Century, when scientists were enthralled by a new philosophy known as Positivism, whose foundations were based on the assumption that material objects exist only when measured by humans – This central assumption conflates epistemology (knowledge) with ontology (existence). The present critique rejects this human-centered view of reality by assuming material reality has existed long before (and will persist long after) human beings (“Realism”). The defensive view that the micro-world is too different to understand using regular thinking (and only a mathematical approach is possible) is rejected totally. At least 12 earlier QM interpretations are critically analyzed, indicating the broad interest in “what does QM mean?” The standard theory of quantum mechanics is thus constructed on only how the micro-world appears to macro measurements - as such, it cannot offer any view of how the foundations of the world are acting when humans are not observing it - this has generated almost 100 years of confusion and contradiction at the very heart of physics. Significantly, we live in a world that is not being measured by scientists but is interacting with itself and with us. QM has failed to provide explanations: only recipes (meaningless equations), not insights. Physics has returned to the pre-Newtonian world of Ptolemaic phenomenology: only verifiable numbers without real understanding. The focus needs to be on an explicit linkage between the micro-world, when left to itself, and our mental models of this sphere of material reality, via the mechanism of measurement. This limits the role of measurement to confirming our mental models of reality but never confusing these with a direct image of ‘the thing in itself’. This implies a deep divide between reality and appearances. This paper proposes that it is the attempt to preserve continuum mathematics (especially calculus), which drives much of the mystery and confusion behind all attempts to understand quantum mechanics. The introduction of discrete mathematics is proposed to help analyze the discrete interactions between the quintessential quantum objects: the electrons and their novel properties. Additionally, several hidden major assumptions have been present in Classical Mechanics (represented by continuum mathematics) since its inception by Newton that are blocking progress and understanding of quantum mechanics. A related paper demonstrates that it is possible to create a point-particle theory of electrons that explains all their peculiar (and ‘paradoxical’) behavior without introducing the continuum mathematical ideas of fields or waves. * Surrey, B.C. Canada (604) 542-2299 spsi99@telus.net Version 1.195 10-07-2016 Begun 23-06-2008 {pp. 80, 70.4 Kw; 800 KB}
This paper re-opens the debate on the failure of quantum mechanics to provide an understandable view of micro-reality. A critique is offered of the commonly accepted ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of a theory that is only a mathematical approach to the level of reality characterized by atoms and electrons. This critique is based on the oldest approach to thinking about nature for over 2500 years, known as Natural Philosophy. Quantum mechanics (QM) was developed over the first quarter of the 20th Century, when scientists were enthralled by a new philosophy known as Positivism, whose foundations were based on the assumption that material objects exist only when measured by humans – this central assumption conflates epistemology (knowledge) with ontology (existence). The present critique rejects this human-centered view of reality by assuming material reality has existed long before (and will persist long after) human beings (“Realism”). The defensive view that the micro-world is too different to understand using regular thinking (and only a mathematical approach is possible) is rejected totally. At least 12 earlier QM interpretations are critically analyzed, indicating the broad interest in “what does QM mean?” The standard theory of quantum mechanics is thus constructed on only how the micro-world appears to macro measurements - as such, it cannot offer any view of how the foundations of the world are acting when humans are not observing it - this has generated almost 100 years of confusion and contradiction at the very heart of physics. Significantly, we live in a world that is not being measured by scientists but is interacting with itself and with us. QM has failed to provide explanations: only recipes (meaningless equations), not insights. Physics has returned to the pre-Newtonian world of Ptolemaic phenomenology: only verifiable numbers without real understanding. The focus needs to be on an explicit linkage between the micro-world, when left to itself, and our mental models of this sphere of material reality, via the mechanism of measurement. This limits the role of measurement to confirming our mental models of reality but never confusing these with a direct image of ‘the thing in itself’. This implies a deep divide between reality and appearances, as Kant suggested. This paper includes an original analysis of several major assumptions that have been implicit in Classical Mechanics (CM) that were acceptable in the macroscopic domain of reality, demonstrated by its proven successes. Unfortunately, only a few of these assumptions were challenged by the developers of QM. We now show that these other assumptions are still generating confusions in the interpretation of QM and blocking further progress in the understanding of the microscopic domain. Several of these flawed assumptions were introduced by Newton to support the use of continuum mathematics as a model of nature. This paper proposes that it is the attempt to preserve continuum mathematics (especially calculus), which drives much of the mystery and confusion behind all attempts at understanding quantum mechanics. The introduction of discrete mathematics is proposed to help analyze the discrete interactions between the quintessential quantum objects: the electrons and their novel properties. A related paper demonstrates that it is possible to create a point-particle theory of electrons that explains all their peculiar (and ‘paradoxical’) behavior using only physical hypotheses and discrete mathematics without introducing the continuum mathematical ideas of fields or waves. Another (related) paper proves that all the known results for the hydrogen atom can also be exactly calculated from this new perspective with the discrete mathematics. * Surrey, B.C. Canada (604) 542-2299 spsi99@telus.net Version 2.015 08-05-2017 Begun 23-06-2008 {pp. 82, 70.2 Kw; 800 KB}
The intention of this paper is not to build quantum metaphysics but to justify the possibility of a second game through interpreting the ideas, concepts and visions from actual physics with ideas and visions borrowed from physics of the Orient. We are aware that quantum metaphysics is far from Abhinavagupta’s metaphysics. After Culianu we introduce both visions in a deforming grid to build a new ideational universe. This ideational universe is a transmodern construction, which tends to become topical in the context of transdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity prevalence. Characterization of thinking as theory and determination of knowledge as a theoretical approach takes place in a inwardly beginning of the technical interpretation of thinking. There is an attempt to keep a sense of reason independently towards action. Philosophy is always in the critical situation to justify its existence to science. The safest way to do this is by self-establishing itself as science. But this effort represents the sacrifice of the essence of knowledge: “in the technical interpretation of thinking, the being as self element of thinking is sacrificed (Hidegger, 1988:314)”. To look positively to philosophy as a dodge of science from metaphysics proves not only destructive to philosophy but also harmful to science. Absolute objectivity claims are increasingly refuted by the development of the cognitive approach. Not only social and human sciences require subjectivity as a dimension of objective knowledge, but physics itself considered the hard part of science reaches to formulate indeterminacy (uncertainty) principles. A new perspective that might be required in the philosophy of science is to look at it as to a semiotics of cognitive act.
Conceptual problems of the quantum theory of measurement are considered, which are embodied in well-known paradoxes and in Bell's inequalities. Arguments are advanced in favor of the viewpoint that these problems may hardly be solved without direct inclusion of the observer's consciousness in the theoretical description of a quantum measurement. Discussed in this connection is the so-called many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics proposed by Everett, as is the extension of Everett's concept, which consists in the assumption that separating the quantum state components corresponding to alternative measurements is not only associated with the observer's consciousness but is completely identified with it. This approach is shown to open up qualitatively new avenues for the unification of physics and psychology and, more broadly, of the sciences and the humanities. This may lead to an extension of the theory of consciousness and shed light on significant and previously misunderstood phenomena in the sphere of consciousness.
The modern version of the wave-function collapse in quantum mechanics is based on decoherence and leads to the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics. The decoherence causes the universe to develop an emergent branching structure. One can interpret the branching structure either as a tree structure or as parallel different histories. Time is not continuous since there are no measurable continuous in quantum physics. Notion of continuous range of possible values of time is just an idealization. The same goes with the direction of time that is a prior assumption based on the branching structure of the multiverse. The multiverse does not exist in external space nor time since there is nothing more beside it. The observer's mind should be not in a superposition with himself. Because of this, in the Many-minds interpretations it is argued that the distinction between worlds should be made at the level of the individual observer. The human bodies are in a superposition, but the minds have definite states that are never in superposition. All possible lives, personalities that do not violate the laws of physics are facts since they represent a valid history in the multiverse. We are one of this possible personalities. Our choices are defined by our personality explained to us by our mind, our consciousness is the unchangeable part of us. It is nonphysical and it senses the world. It does not interact with the brain in the other way beside it.
Abstract: The mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics has achieved undeniable success over the past century, yet its interpretation remains persistently divided. The Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, and Quantum Bayesian interpretations—none can coherently address the recurring "observer participation" issue in quantum phenomena without introducing additional ad hoc assumptions. This paper argues that this division does not stem from deficiencies in mathematical formalism, but from a deeper paradigmatic presupposition: that quantum mechanics is tacitly regarded as a theory of "matter itself." This paper proposes a different perspective: quantum mechanics is not a theory describing the properties of matter itself, but a theory describing the rules by which information is translated from a global potential state to a local manifest state when material systems couple with cognitive systems—what this paper terms the "Mind-Matter Linkage." Based on the axiom of "Mind-Matter Unity," this paper defines three layers of function (Ontological Function, Differentiation Function, Manifestation Function), and repositions quantum mechanics as the mathematical formal system of translation rules between the Differentiation Function and the Manifestation Function. From this axiom, this paper successively derives five core phenomena that require ad hoc assumptions within the matter-only framework—the delayed-choice experiment, the quantum eraser experiment, quantum entanglement, the quantum Zeno effect, and the "Hard Problem" of consciousness—demonstrating how a single set of premises naturally yields these phenomena without the need for additional assumptions for each individual phenomenon. Comparative analysis shows that, in the specific dimension of "number of assumptions required to explain the fivefold dilemma," the framework proposed here exhibits structural advantages, though these advantages remain at the level of explanatory power and have not yet been extended to mathematical formalization or predictive power. This paper does not deny the reality of matter, does not modify the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, and does not replace existing interpretations, but rather offers a supplementary perspectival shift at the epistemological level.