The general view is that all fundamental physical laws should be formulated within the framework given by quantum mechanics (QM). In a sense, QM therefore has the character of a metaphysical theory. Consequently, if it is possible to derive QM from more basic principles, these principles should be of general, philosophical nature. Here, we derive the formalism of QM from well-motivated epistemic principles. A key assumption is that a physical theory that relies on entities or distinctions that are unknowable in principle gives rise to wrong predictions. First, an epistemic formalism is developed, using concepts like knowledge and potential knowledge, identifying a physical state
S with the potential knowledge of the physical world. It is demonstrated that QM emerges from this formalism. However, Hilbert spaces, wave functions and probabilities are defined in certain well-defined observational contexts only. This means that the epistemic formalism is broader than QM. In the fundamental layer of description, the physical state
S is a subset of a state space
S={Z}, such that
S always contains many elements
Z. These elements correspond to unattainable states of complete knowledge of the world. The evolution of
S cannot be determined in terms of the individual evolution of the elements
Z, unlike the evolution of an ensemble in classical phase space. The evolution of
S is described in terms of sequential time
n∈N, which is updated according to
n→n+1 each time an event occurs, each time potential knowledge changes. Sequential time
n can be separated from relational time
t, which describes distances between events in space-time. There is an entire space-time associated with each
n, in which
t represents the knowledge at sequential time
n about the temporal relations between present and past events.
This work presents a historical-epistemological analysis of the foundations of quantum mechanics. From a philosophical point of view, the relationships between quantum mechanics and scientific realism are highlighted, as well as the influence of the neo-positivist philosophy of the first decades of the 20th century. The great significance of measurement in the context of quantum mechanics is underlined, as an essential element in providing a coherent description of reality moving from the microcosm to the macrocosm, as well as the role that the measurement apparatus and the consciousness of the observer assume during the act of measurement, the ontological problem, the problem of the objectification of the wave function and the problem of the definition of discernibility. This is followed by an overview of the most important alternative proposals to the standard interpretation (Copenhagen interpretation), with particular reference to hidden variable theories, and other alternatives to standard quantum mechanics that profoundly modify the vision of reality, such as the Everett’s many-worlds theory, the QBism, the unified holistic approach.
We present a historical-epistemological analysis of the foundations of quantum mechanics, highlighting the relationships between quantum mechanics and scientific realism, as well as the influence of the neo-positivist philosophy of the first decades of the 20th century. The great significance of the measurement process in the context of quantum mechanics is underlined as an essential element in providing a coherent description of reality, moving from micro to macrocosm, as well as the role that the measurement apparatus and the consciousness of the observer assume during the act of measurement, the related ontological problems, the question of the objectification of the wave function, and that of the definition of discernibility. We consider also an overview of the most important alternative proposals to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics (Copenhagen interpretation), with particular reference to hidden variable theories and other alternatives to standard quantum mechanics philosophical approach, that are modifying the vision of reality, such as the Everett’s many-worlds theory, the QBism and unified holistic approaches, such as the Primordial Dynamic Space.
Mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics: brief introduction In this chapter, we present basic notions of quantum mechanics, and we emphasize “quantum mathematics.” To posit that the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics can be used outside of quantum physics (as in sociology, economics, or finance) may be of interest. If one can steer away from merely positing and veer instead into convincing the reader that such a position is tenable, then some achievement has been booked. But the price to pay is that the formalism of quantum mechanics needs to be uncovered: how else can one judge whether what we posit is senseful? Thus, a reader can either (i) formally accept our viewpoint about the quantum-like paradigm (see Khrennikov [1]), or (ii) ask for a detailed analysis of the quantum foundations which would justify this paradigm. In the first case, it may well be sufficient to skip this chapter (but we should suggest to attempt to include Chapter 3). In the second case, we invite especially those readers who are concerned about the fact that the formal usage of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics may transfer major problems of quantum foundations to social science, economics, and finance, to read the present chapter carefully.
When we understand, usually philosophical debates disappear. In this brief paper, starting from some works, we argue that quantum entangled states could be considered as primitive. We analyze from a conceptual point of view this basic question: can the nature of quantum entangled states be interpreted ontologically or epistemologically? According to some works, the degrees of freedom (and the tool of quantum partitions) of quantum systems permit us to establish a possible classification between factorizable and entangled states. We suggest, that the of degree of freedom (or quantum partitions), even if mathematically justified introduces an epistemic element, not only in the systems but also in their classification. We retain, instead, that there are not two classes of quantum states, entangled and factorizable, but only a single class of states: the entangled states. In fact, the factorizable states become entangled for a different choice of their degrees of freedom (i.e. they are entangled with respect to other observables). In the same way, there are no partitions of quantum systems which have an ontologically superior status with respect to any other. For all these reasons, both mathematical tools utilize(i.e quantum partitions or degrees of freedom) are responsible for creating an improper classification of quantum systems. Finally, we argue that we cannot speak about a classification of quantum systems: all quantum states exhibit a uniquely objective nature, they are all entangled states. In this framework we think that Rovelli’s interpretation of QM based on the relational approach could be considered a good candidate to understand the nature of physical reality.
In this brief paper, starting from recent works, we analyze from conceptual point of view this basic question: can the nature of quantum entangled states be interpreted ontologically or epistemologically? According to some works, the degrees of freedom (and the tool of quantum partitions) of quantum systems permit us to establish a possible classification between factorizable and entangled states. We suggest, that the "choice" of degree of freedom (or quantum partitions), even if mathematically justified introduces an epistemic element, not only in the systems but also in their classification. We retain, instead, that there are not two classes of quantum states, entangled and factorizable, but only a single class of states: the entangled states. In fact, the factorizable states become entangled for a different choice of their degrees of freedom (i.e. they are entangled with respect to other observables). In the same way, there are no partitions of quantum systems which have an ontologically superior status with respect to any other. For all these reasons, both mathematical tools utilize(i.e quantum partitions or degrees of freedom) are responsible for creating an improper classification of quantum systems. Finally, we argue that we cannot speak about a classification of quantum systems: all quantum states exhibit a uniquely objective nature, they are all entangled states.