The scientific fields of quantum mechanics and signal-analysis originated within different settings, aimed at different goals and started from different scientific paradigms. Yet the development of the two subjects has become increasingly intertwined. We argue that these similarities are rooted in the fact that both fields of scientific inquiry had to deal with finding a single description for a phenomenon that yields complete information about itself only when we consider mutually incompatible accounts of that phenomenon.
The scientific fields of quantum mechanics and signal-analysis originated within different settings, aimed at different goals and started from different scientific paradigms. Yet the development of the two subjects has become increasingly intertwined. We argue that these similarities are rooted in the fact that both fields of scientific inquiry had to deal with finding a single description for a phenomenon that yields complete information about itself only when we consider mutually incompatible accounts of that phenomenon.
The theory of probability and the quantum theory, the one mathematical and the other physical, are related in that each admits a number of very different interpretations. It has been proposed that the conceptual problems of the quantum theory could be, if not resolved, at least mitigated by a proper interpretation of probability. We rather show, through a historical and analytical overview of probability and quantum theory, that if some interpretations of the one and the other go along particularly well, none follows in a unique way.
Abstract This article1 presents a two-part proposal aimed at exploring “reality” through unifying perspectives and universally consistent foundations. Both parts are inspired by Erwin Schrödinger’s principle of objectivation, particularly the function of the ‘Subject of Cognizance’ embedded within it, and the (seemingly unresolvable, yet inescapable!) issue of the ‘location’ of the boundary between the ‘observed’ and the ‘observer’ that arises in the interpretation of quantum theory. In the first part, it is argued that different interpretations of quantum theory could be viewed as complementary rather than as alternatives, for each interpretation provides insight into different aspects of reality, and thus, integrating perspectives from multiple quantum interpretations can offer a more holistic understanding of reality than relying on a single interpretation. The plausibility of this argument is explained with a brief reference to the phenomenon of electron double-slit interference. The second part of the proposal asserts that, it is essential to eliminate any discrepancy between the way in which the terms ‘physics’ and ‘reality’ are regarded in scientific inquiry, for developing a universal, all-encompassing and consistent world view of the latter — emphasising that not only the ‘observed’ but also the ‘observer’ (considered here as the measuring instrument or apparatus) and the ‘Subject of Cognizance’ (viewed here as the conscious observer) are integral parts of the whole reality. This assertion is supported by some specific remarks of Richard Feynman and David Bohm.
It is widely accepted that consciousness at the start of the 20th century was considered mainly in the context of neurology and the mind-body problem belonged to the domain of neuroscience, psychology and philosophy, later broadened by behavioural science and cognitive science. However, these disciplines cannot completely explain the correlation between mental activity and matter. \nChapter one starts by defining the difficulty of determining consciousness. A discussion of how philosophers (such as Descartes, Locke, Dennett and Nagel) attempted to describe this phenomenon leads to the conclusion that firstly, consciousness is indefinable and secondly, it continues to be a challenge for both – philosophy and science – to explain how subjective consciousness fits into the objective world. The following two parts of the chapter focus on the major philosophical theories of the mind-body problem. \nIn chapter two there is a focus on the mutual relation between philosophy and science, physics in particular. However, this project deals more with the implications of science for the philosophy of mind and mind-body problem than the science itself. The second enquiry of this chapter is to point out the difference in philosophical and scientific understanding of the word ‘substance’ (crucial to the mind-body problem). \nChapter three considers quantum theory, since the relation between mind and body started to be tackled from the completely new point of view, after the philosophers began to assimilate the implications of quantum physics. Firstly, there is a short introduction to quantum theory and the most significant points for philosophy and quantum mechanics issues are provided (such as quantum superposition, the measurement problem or the backward causation). Analysis of three prevailing theories is provided. \nThis project addresses the contribution of quantum mechanics to the studies of consciousness and matter and examines whether it helps in solving the mind-body problem.
Ever since the beginning of quantum mechanics, the measurement problem has been a subject of sometimes discontinued but nevertheless recurrent concern. As students, most physicists have raised questions about it, but the spectacular and renewed successes of quantum theory were a strong incentive for them to work out applications without further worrying about foundations. In each generation, however, some dissatisfaction reemerges, which leads to slow progress, and we may expect that the measurement problem will some day be cleared up rather than forgotten. The situation recalls statistical mechanics, the foundations of which still give rise to scientific discussions, in spite of more than one century’s achievements. Actually, the paradoxes of irreversibility and of Maxwell’s demon share some common features with quantum measurements, to wit, they involve probabilities in a crucial fashion and their explanation requires elucidating the role of the observer.
Chalmers divides the problems of consciousness into: The easy problem, which deals with the study of neurobiological models of consciousness. Considering the enormous progresses of science it is relatively simple to find neural correlates of the conscious experiences. The easy problems largely deals with the functioning of the brain in the way it transmits and reads sensory signals, in the processing of information, in the control of behaviour, in the mechanisms underlying intelligence and memory, in the capability of reproducing verbal accounts, etc. Nevertheless, according to Chalmers, this approach does not explain the subjective qualities that consciousness has for the subject; in other words this approach is not able to answer the problem of the phenomenal consciousness. The hard problem which deals with the explanation of the qualitative and subjective aspects of consciousness, which escape a physicalistic and materialistic analysis. In the first chapter of this work, models suggested by Antonio Damasio (1999), Gerald Edelman (2000) and Francisco Varela (1996) are described. These models try to explain consciousness using the principles of classical physics. These models show a different attitude towards localization: Damasio suggests neural sites in which consciousness could take place, Edelman suggests that consciousness is a global process of all the brain and Varela considers consciousness as a distributed quality of all the organism and of the interaction of the organism with the environment. In the second chapter, the models of consciousness based on quantum mechanics are reviewed. Using together the criteria of scientific falsification and the criteria of biological compatibility only two models, one suggested by Luigi Fantappiè (1942) and the other one suggested by Chris King (2003), survive the selection. It is interesting to note that these models are not pure quantum mechanical models, as they both originate from the integration of Schrödinger’s wave equation (quantum mechanics) with special relativity