In this paper we start with a description of the standard picture of reality assumed by most practicing physicists, especially popularizers of science. We then discuss ways in which quantum theory and relativity present difficulties for this picture. The trend in modern physics instantiated by the quantum and relativity theories is away from an objective, bird’s eye view of the world towards a description in terms of the subjective perceptions of observers immersed in the world. I tentatively complete this trend by describing a provisional theory in which the fundamental entity is the visual image seen by an observer at a given locality; I call this theory the theory of the Light Matter Complex. From here, it is but a short leap to Berkeleyan idealism, which, as we discuss in the conclusion, solves some problems in the theory of knowledge, justifying taking such a mad system of thought seriously.
In this paper we start with a description of the standard picture of reality assumed by most practicing physicists, especially popularizers of science. We then discuss ways in which quantum theory and relativity present difficulties for this picture. The trend in modern physics instantiated by the quantum and relativity theories is away from an objective, bird’s eye view of the world towards a description in terms of the subjective perceptions of observers immersed in the world. I tentatively complete this trend by describing a provisional theory in which the fundamental entity is the visual image seen by an observer at a given locality; I call this theory the theory of the Light Matter Complex. From here, it is but a short leap to Berkeleyan idealism, which, as we discuss in the conclusion, solves some problems in the theory of knowledge, justifying taking such a mad system of thought seriously.
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.
The classical concept of 'physical entity', be it particle, wave, fleld or system, has become a problematic concept since the advent of relativity theory and quantum mechanics. The recent developments in modern quantum mechanics, with the performance of delicate and precise experiments involving single quantum entities, manifesting explicit non-local behavior for these entities, brings essential new information about the nature of the concept of entity. Such fundamental categories as space and time are put into question, and only a recourse to more axiomatic descriptions seems possible. In this contribution we want to put forward a 'picture' of what an 'entity' might be, taking into account these recent experimental and theoretical results, and using fundamental results of the axiomatic physical theories (describing classical as well as quantum entities) such as they have been developed during the last decade. We call our approach the 'creation-discovery view' because it considers measurements as physical interactions that in general entail two aspects: (1) a discovery of an already existing reality and (2) a creation of new aspects of reality during the act of measurement. We analyze the paradoxes of orthodox quantum mechanics in this creation-discovery view and point out the pre-scientiflc preconceptions that are contained in the well-known orthodox interpretations of quantum mechanics. Finally we identify orthodox quantum mechanics as a flrst order non classical theory, and explain in this way why it is so successful in its numerical predictions
The problem of mind and consciousness cannot be treated as an object of science without much difficulty. Inevitably there is the self-contradiction that the work itself in science and thinking is an object of thought. In this meaning, we need to get back to the fundamental problem of how the world is perceived. The fundamental concept of quantum theory includes essentially unsolved problems such as the observation problem. In this paper, we begin to consider this fundamental problem in quantum theory and discuss the possibility of a description of mind in terms of quantum theory.
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.
In this article I present the extracts and summary of heuristic and speculative observations on various aspects I feel are problematic in the practice of modern physics, the definitions and methods of which are the premise for the whole of Science. The illustrations will be fully developed in a later, more extensive and in-depth work in which some theoretical solutions will also be put forward; therefore in the interests of brevity all assertions will not be demonstrated fully in this article. I will initially discuss the problem with thinking of Reality as basically being made up of ontologically autonomous “parts”; I will recall how the existence of the vacuum is demonstrated through the thermodynamic experiments about heat capacities run by W. Nernst and the experiments of W. Lamb and H. Casimir (static and dynamic); the vacuum will be defined as an object that precedes matter and space, and actually illustrated as an evolving (becoming) singularity, which all existence draws from; the non-isolability of the autonomous entity will be substantiated further by the uncertainty demonstrated as intrinsically following on from phase space quantisation, and not only as an algebraic requirement of quantum formalism. Once the inconsistency of the isolable entity has been demonstrated, the ontological supremacy of relationships in a perspective close to ontic structural realism will be considered; finally, issues relating to the usual idea of “information” in the scientific domain (in thermodynamics, informatics, and telecommunications) will be discussed fairly briefly, and its inadequacy in pooling knowledge. I will then touch on what is meant by living information as the basis for Reality and how it can be discussed consistently in terms of a self-implementing subject. It should be stressed that these topics are dealt with more extensively (along with other important subjects excluded here for reasons of space) in a complete work.
Physicists usually admit a rather naive concept of physical reality: it is the object they are investigating using experiments understood as actions in the real world.in theoretical physics, the object of investigation is not the real world itself but its mathematical description which is considered as describing physical reality as exactly as possible.i present arguments from philosophy of science and from recent work in the theory of gravitational physics which indicate a possibility to defend also antirealistic views, and clarify in which sense both standpoints can be viable.