If interpretation is a metacognitive process, interpreting a physical theory means identifying themetaphysical concepts suitable for representing its theoretical terms. From this perspective, given thelinearity of the formalism of quantum mechanics, its natural interpretation is the one suggested by W.Heisenberg, according to whom quantum mechanics governs the potential level of physical reality, not itsactual level.
If interpretation is a metacognitive process, interpreting a physical theory means identifying themetaphysical concepts suitable for representing its theoretical terms. From this perspective, given thelinearity of the formalism of quantum mechanics, its natural interpretation is the one suggested by W.Heisenberg, according to whom quantum mechanics governs the potential level of physical reality, not itsactual level.
This paper deals with the problem of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, the nature of physical theory, and the future of physics. First, the question of why there are so many different interpretations of quantum mechanics proposed and accepted by outstanding quantum experts is treated. This requires a discussion of the relation between physics and philosophy and drawing a distinction between a physical formalism and a physical explanation. The Copenhagen interpretation is considered, criticized, and found to be unsatisfactory in some respects. Finally, an interpretation that contains ideas from previous interpretations but which may itself be new, is proposed. Hopefully, this is superior to the previous interpretations. It has, I believe, the advantage of logical clarity. In the process of doing this, I introduce a theory of levels of physical theory, according to which microscopic physical theory, as it develops in successive stages, becomes more and more adaptable to explaining—or at least taking cognizance of—fundamental biological or ultimately psychological phenomena.
Quantum mechanics has maintained over the years the reputation of being "the most obscure theory." It works perfectly well, but nobody seems to know why. It has been argued that the difficulty in understanding quantum theory is our failed attempt to force onto it a wrong conceptual scheme, wanting at all costs to think about the objects of the theory as, precisely, objects, i.e., entities having continuously actual spatiotemporal properties. This too restrictive spatiotemporal scheme is most probably at the heart of the problem, as also underlined by the Einsteinian revolution, but then what could be an alternative? Many thinkers have suggested that we must surrender to the fact that our physical world is one of immanent powers and potencies. Aristotle did so ante quantum litteram, followed by scholars like Heisenberg, Primas, Shimony, Piron, Kastner, Kauffman, de Ronde, just to name a few, including the authors, who were both students of Piron in Geneva. However, if on the one hand a potentiality ontology puts the accent on the processes of change, responsible for the incessant shifts between actual and potential properties, on the other hand it does not tell what these changes are all about. In other words, the metaphysical question remains of identifying the nature of the bearer of these potencies, or potentialities, and of the entities that can actualize them. It is the purpose of the present article to emphasize that the above question has found a possible answer in the recent Conceptuality Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which we believe offers the missing ontology and metaphysics that can make the theory fully intelligible, and even intuitive.
A physical theory consists of the mathematical formalism and an interpretation, which contains the definition of symbols, measurement assignments, concepts and principles, and an ontology. We present a scheme to classify these different levels of a physical theory and apply it to Newtonian Mechanics and the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. We show that this classification scheme is embedded in the methodology of philosophy of science. With this scheme, different interpretations of Quantum Mechanics can be compared concerning the formalism and the used conceptions, and it serves as a guidance to identify ontological entities and reality conceptions in the different interpretations. Inspired by the commitments on the ontological level, we propose two heuristics concerning ontological statements.
According to the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, the apparent paradoxes of quantum theory require no change either in our philosophical attitude toward scientific theories or in the formalism of quantum mechanics itself. Rather, the unaltered theory can be understood as a literal description of physical reality. But the physical reality thus described is one of many noninteracting, approximately classical worlds. These worlds enter the theory not at the fundamental level—they are nowhere to be found in the basic formalism—but at a higher, emergent level; in this sense they are (ontologically speaking) on a par with the ontology of the special sciences.
Quantum mechanics, the physical theory describing the microworld, is one of science's greatest triumphs. Remarkably, however, after more than 100 years it is still unclear what quantum mechanics means in terms of basic philosophical questions about the nature of reality. While there are many interpretations of the mathematical machinery of quantum physics, there remain no experimental means to distinguish between most of them. In this contribution, I wish to consider the ways in which the enduring lack of an agreed-upon interpretation of quantum physics influences a number of critical philosophical debates about physics and reality. I briefly review two problems affected by quantum interpretations: the meaning of the term universe and the nature of consciousness.
What is the nature of reality? How should be an answer to this question? At this level, we are so deep that all our concepts are obscure. Quantum theory (QT) is at this level. The quest for interpreting it fails because the clarity of our actual fundamental concepts in ordinary language cannot match the precision of the theory's mathematical formalism. The interpretation of quantum mechanics should define and bring clarity to fundamental concepts; not simply rely over them. Quantum theory requires a new worldview, the one that will make it understandable. We discuss on the formulation and interpretation of closed, and final theories, in other words, completely axiomatic theories that define their own conceptual framework, and closed theories that cannot be made simpler. We claim that everything we can properly say about a theory follows from its interpretation, and that interpreting is saying the meaning of each of its mathematical statements. We argue that quantum mechanics is a closed theory; and, therefore, that part of it is part of the final or fundamental theory of physics (FTP). We propose a new entirely axiomatic formulation of part of quantum theory (including all its mathematical framework) in which new powerful and useful elements are added to the existing formalism. Our interpretation is straightforward: it allows us reading or saying the meaning of each of the theory's axiom, theorem or element. We state that the proposed theory is the FTP. Its interpretation may dissolve most of the existing paradoxes around QT. The principle of excluded middle is not valid in general. Both epistemic and ontic elements are present in the theory since it is a theory of knowledge and truth. This and other fundamental concepts are defined by the theory, which can represent both reality and our knowledge about it. Aesthetics is one of its key features.