One way to look at physics is from the perspective of philosophy. Indeed, physics can also be described as natural philosophy . Let us remember that universities don't award doctorates in physics (maybe they should) but they do award doctorates in philosophy to those who do physics. Here, we approach the subject of quantum philosophy without using any of the language associated with philosophy. We want a clear and direct discussion. The message is quite simple: quantum mechanics is based on indeterminism . Classical mechanics comes from determinism which is also one of the philosophical schools of thought. Given the enormous success of quantum mechanics, perhaps it is time for our philosophy friends to explore how indeterminism and uncertainty may temper deterministic perspectives in the classical domain. An additional message in this chapter, of interest to philosophers, is the fact that the physics of quantum entanglement , that is, derivation of its equations, is utterly independent of Bell's theorem .
One way to look at physics is from the perspective of philosophy. Indeed, physics can also be described as natural philosophy . Let us remember that universities don't award doctorates in physics (maybe they should) but they do award doctorates in philosophy to those who do physics. Here, we approach the subject of quantum philosophy without using any of the language associated with philosophy. We want a clear and direct discussion. The message is quite simple: quantum mechanics is based on indeterminism . Classical mechanics comes from determinism which is also one of the philosophical schools of thought. Given the enormous success of quantum mechanics, perhaps it is time for our philosophy friends to explore how indeterminism and uncertainty may temper deterministic perspectives in the classical domain. An additional message in this chapter, of interest to philosophers, is the fact that the physics of quantum entanglement , that is, derivation of its equations, is utterly independent of Bell's theorem .
Introduction Chapter 1 dealt with one of the deepest mysteries in modern science: how to explain consciousness. This Part deals with another mystery: how to make sense of quantum mechanics. Both involve a problem of reconciliation with the classical worldview, which is one hint that the two mysteries might be related. A second is that, unlike classical physics, which makes no reference to or allowance for consciousness, quantum theory raises the issue of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world in a very direct way. These hints do not necessarily mean there is a connection between the two mysteries, but by the end of this Part I hope to have shown why it would be natural to look for one. My more immediate aim here is to give the social scientific reader an introductory understanding of the experimental findings of quantum theory, its key concepts, and the debates about its interpretation. The discussion assumes no prior knowledge of quantum physics and makes no use of mathematics. Quantum theory without equations might seem like an oxymoron, and certainly reading this Part will not enable anyone to use quantum theory. But to a perhaps surprising degree it is possible to understand quantum theory without being able to use it. Its findings can be communicated in ordinary language, and the same goes for its main concepts and interpretive debates. One consequence of this has been the emergence of a virtual cottage industry of books on quantum theory for a lay audience. Most are written by physicists, and many are quite good. However, it is not just popular treatments that do without equations: much of the professional philosophical literature does as well. (I draw on both kinds of literature below.) Philosophers of physics are trained to understand the math, of course, which is necessary for a full appreciation of the issues.
The fundamental deterministic nature of quantum mechanics (QM) is mathematically demonstrated by the modeling of the quantum (multiple) slit experiments; hence this paper is written from a deterministic perspective (DP) in quantum mechanics. Due to approximately 90 years of indeterminism and probabilistic statistical results, the theory consists of many interpretations and is often regarded as counterintuitive. The latter is in the deterministic perspective not the case and is illustrated with some examples. After a brief historic perspective, ‘invisible’ i.e. invisible entities of reality in mathematical treatment, are introduced. These entities are handled by mathematics indirectly i.e. are described in a transformed domain without variables violating the Heisenberg relation. In nature, i.e. on micro and macro levels, causality is fully ‘entangled’ with energy, information - in the meaning of ordering or coding - as well as time. In contrast with the macro scale with many forms and types of memory functions, without a memory property of quanta, causality is the bearer of information symmetry on the quantum scale. Further on in this DP paper: mathematical and philosophical consequences and influences in several paragraphs, regarding subjects such as ‘free will’ and expected ‘threats to science’, the Bell inequalities, Alice and Bob & entanglement, causality, information, retro-causality, spooky action, encryption and computing, teleportation, and in general interpretations rooted in indeterminacy in QM as well as associated topics on independence, fine-tuning. The last paragraph outlines the mathematical treatment of QM more extensively and may clarify references to the above-mentioned topics of discussion in QM further.
Abstract Quantum mechanics is our most successful and versatile account of the basic constituents of matter, of their interaction and of their compounds. We introduce the theory via a sketch of its history and lay out its mathematical structure in some detail. Before this background we address the important and controversial question of how to interpret that structure. We contextualise our own position, which is linked to our account of ontological emergence as detailed in Chap. 2 , and which is mathematically best expressed in the Heisenberg picture of quantum dynamics. Indeterminism and irreversible processes are fundamental for our approach. We discuss the dialectics of the deterministic challenge to our position and argue that indeterminism in the form of quantum randomness has turned from a philosophical riddle to a technological resource. This claim is supported by a discussion of quantum information science, including some of its basic protocols. Towards the end of the chapter we argue that agency and quantum mechanics come as a package deal. For one, quantum mechanics describes the world as offering open possibilities for the future at a fundamental physical level, which is needed for real higher-order organisation, including agency. Of course, this does not in any way show that the actual existence of agents in our world is guaranteed. But it does show that general agency scepticism has no basis in physics. Second, we show that quantum mechanics is best understood as a theory that describes our agential interactions with nature, and not as a theory that represents nature from the point of view of an inert, detached observer.
Philosophical reflections on physics and its theories have been shaping the agenda of general philosophy of science, including issues such as the nature of scientific theories, the meaning of scientific terms, and scientific modeling. But physics is also well worth being considered a special science of its own, whose methods and tools raised specific questions for philosophers of science: this is the approach followed in this chapter, which has as its main thread the role of mathematics in physical theories. It tackles classical issues concerning measurement and determinism and long-standing controversies in the philosophy of statistical mechanics (how may the reversible laws of mechanics account for the irreversible principles of thermodynamics?) and in the philosophy of quantum physics (does quantum mechanics provide us a with a complete description of quantum phenomena?). It also addresses emerging issues in the field, such as computer simulations and their role between theory and observation.
Classical mechanics and quantum mechanics are two of the most successful scientific theories ever discovered, and yet how they can describe the same world is far from clear: one theory is deterministic, the other indeterministic; one theory describes a world in which chaos is pervasive, the other a world in which chaos is absent. Focusing on the exciting field of 'quantum chaos', this book reveals that there is a subtle and complex relation between classical and quantum mechanics. It challenges the received view that classical and quantum mechanics are incommensurable, and revives another, largely forgotten tradition due to Niels Bohr and Paul Dirac. By artfully weaving together considerations from the history of science, philosophy of science, and contemporary physics, this book offers a new way of thinking about intertheory relations and scientific explanation. It will be of particular interest to historians and philosophers of science, philosophically-inclined physicists, and interested non-specialists.
Classical science and in fact Post-Newtonian science up till the early twentieth century were mired in a deterministic interpretation of realities. The deterministic hypothesis in science holds that everything in nature has a cause and if one could know the antecedent causes, he could predict the future with certainty. But quantum mechanics holds that sub-atomic particles, though the ultimate materials from which all the complexity of existence in the universe emerges, do not obey deterministic laws, hence, their activities are causally indeterminate and could only be understood with probability. This paper argues that quantum mechanics can not totally be free from determinism, for it has subtly conceded to determinism in holding that the sub-atomic particles are the building blocks of the macro world, and that there is interconnection between entities in the universe, even at the nonmanifest level. The probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics only betray our human limitation of the knowledge of nature, which, I believe still have lots of tricks in our sleeves over mankind. Sophia: An African Journal of Philosophy Vol. 8(1) 2005:72-79 Keywords: Keywords: