Ontological Foundations of Cognition in Quantum Physics

2021 ◽  
pp. 62-68
Author(s):  
Mikhail V. Kletskin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Quantum Physics ◽  
Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Physical Sciences ◽  
Interpretations Of Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Future Events ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Physical Phenomena ◽  
Probabilistic Nature

The aim of the article is to analyze the ontological foundations of quantum mechanics and the relationship of various interpretations of quantum mechanics with the question of truth in scientific knowledge. The theoretical material (various interpretations of quantum mechanics) was analyzed. The research methods were analysis, comparative-historical and institutional approaches. On the basis of the study, it can be concluded that physicists are only able to predict the probabilities of physical phenomena or processes, without any knowledge of the structure of entity in itself. The study helps to complement the theoretical picture of the ontology of quantum mechanics and to get an idea about the development prospects of the methodology of physical sciences. We should not ascribe properties that are unobservable in experience to the entity because science can truly interpret only the representation of entity in itself in experience and the ways of dealing with it, not future events or possible states of the entity. Otherwise, science “slides” down to the level of dialectical (rhetorical) exercises based not on true premises, but on generally accepted or “authoritative” biases, which gives room to extreme forms of relativism and takes natural scientists away from studying nature to inventing empirically unsupported hypotheses. When, in accordance with the Cartesian ontology, the scientist assumes that the entity is as the “subject” observes it (that is, the “reflection” of the entity in consciousness is identified with entity in itself), this assumption leads the scientist to attempts to “scientifically” describe the future events or the possible states of the entity. The criterion for the truth of a scientific theory put forward by Einstein in his dispute with Bohr remains a fundamentally unattainable ideal. Cognition of nature is probabilistically and fundamentally incomplete since a person can consciously comprehend natural phenomena only within the framework of their representation in the existing being. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is due to the impossibility of knowing things as they exist by themselves, that is, as they exist outside of representation in the mind of the observer. This does not mean that physical entities did not exist before their knowledge: they existed potentially, but were not valid for the observer, that is, conscious. Quantum physics is as incomplete as any other physical theory when compared with an unattainable ideal, but this fact does not negate its truth for modern scientists since quantum theory is based on the results of verified experiments.

Quantum Metaphors and the Study of the Mind-Brain

1998 ◽  
pp. 228-234
Author(s):  
Delores D. Liston
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Quantum Physics ◽  
Cartesian Dualism ◽  
Brain Physiology ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Participant Observer ◽  
The Brain

Although much of current neuroscience literature speaks of the mind-brain, most study of the mind-brain generally remains focused on either the mind (psychology, philosophy or sociology) or the brain (physiology). Neuroscientists continue to be hampered by Cartesian dualism and the divisions it creates. Even when we speak of the mind-brain, our attention tends to revert to either the mind or the brain. A similar problem faced physicists earlier this century during the rise of quantum mechanics. I believe that adopting metaphors from quantum physics can help us overcome the tendency to dichotomize our study of the mind-brain. In this paper, I explore some of these metaphors (such as the participant-observer and wave-particle unity) to help establish a set of sustainable metaphors within which we can unify our interpretations of the mind-brain.

scholarly journals Darwinism in disguise? A comparison between Bohr's view on quantum mechanics and QBism

2016 ◽  
Vol 374 (2068) ◽  
pp. 20150236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Faye
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Quantum Physics ◽  
Copenhagen Interpretation ◽  
Pragmatic Approach ◽  
Evolution Of Language ◽  
Physical Phenomena ◽  
Recent Interpretation ◽  
As If

The Copenhagen interpretation is first and foremost associated with Niels Bohr's philosophy of quantum mechanics. In this paper, I attempt to lay out what I see as Bohr's pragmatic approach to science in general and to quantum physics in particular. A part of this approach is his claim that the classical concepts are indispensable for our understanding of all physical phenomena, and it seems as if the claim is grounded in his reflection upon how the evolution of language is adapted to experience. Another, recent interpretation, QBism, has also found support in Darwin's theory. It may therefore not be surprising that sometimes QBism is said to be of the same breed as the Copenhagen interpretation. By comparing the two interpretations, I conclude, nevertheless, that there are important differences.

scholarly journals Consistent description of microscopic phenomena by macroscopic observers in quantum theory

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexey Kryukov
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Quantum Theory ◽  
Quantum Physics ◽  
Random Noise ◽  
Thought Experiments ◽  
Newtonian Physics ◽  
Measurement Results ◽  
Modern Physics ◽  
Measured System ◽  
Physical Phenomena

Abstract Quantum mechanics is the foundation of modern physics that is thought to be applicable to all physical phenomena, at least in principle. However, when applied to macroscopic bodies, the theory seems to be inconsistent. Wigner's friend and related thought experiments demonstrate that accounts by different observers described by the rules of quantum mechanics may be contradictory. Although still highly debated, such experiments seem to demonstrate an incompatibility of quantum mechanics with the usual rules of logic. Alternatively, one of the hidden assumptions in the thought experiments must be wrong. For instance, the argument is invalidated if macroscopic observers cannot be considered as physical systems described by the rules of quantum theory. Here we prove that there is a way to apply the rules of quantum mechanics to macroscopic observers while avoiding contradictory accounts of measurement by the observers. The key to this is the random noise that is ever present in nature and that represents the uncontrollable part of interaction between measured system and the surroundings in classical and quantum physics. By exploring the effect of the noise on microscopic and macroscopic bodies, we demonstrate that accounts of Wigner, the friend and other agents all become consistent. Our result suggests that the existing attempts to modify the Schrodinger equation to account for measurement results may be misguided. More broadly, the proposed mechanism for modeling measurements underlies the phenomenon of decoherence and is shown to be sufficient to explain the transition to Newtonian physics in quantum theory.

Processual Thinking in the Ontological and Epistemological context of Quantum Mechanics

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (7) ◽  
pp. 21-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir I. Arshinov ◽  
Vladimir G. Budanov
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Quantum Physics ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Relativistic Quantum ◽  
Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Natural Environments ◽  
Cultural Codes ◽  
Problems Of Translation ◽  
Different Cultures ◽  
Cognitive Niches

The problem of commensurability/incommensurability of different cultural codes is a key problem of modern civilizational development. This is the problem of the search for communicative unity in the world of cultural and biological diversity, which has to be protected, and the search for the cohesion of different Umwelten, of semiotically-defined artificial and natural environments, of ecological and cognitive niches, taking into account that each of them has their own identity and uniqueness. The purpose of the article is to draw attention to the fact that the question of the so-called incommensurability of different conceptual schemes, paradigms, language consciousnesses is widely discussed not only in cross-cultural studies and philosophical problems of translation but also in connection with the problems of incommensurability (untranslatability) between the language of classical physics and the language of relativistic quantum physics. Attention is drawn to the problem of the incommensurability and correlation of different languages that are used in debates about the foundations of quantum mechanics, its interpretation, comprehension and ontology. Two approaches stand out in this debate. The first approach is based on the language of the formed being, on the language of things localized in time and on the logic of Aristotle. The second approach is based on the language of the becoming, process and nonlocality, on the search for various processual-oriented temporal logics. In this regard, we discuss the processual approach to understanding quantum mechanics, proposed in the philosophical and physical works of D. Bohm. The authors argue that (a) the experience of constructive understanding of the metaproblems of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, (b) the critical reception of the legacy of such philosophers of the process as Peirce, Bergson and Whitehead, (c) the deep reflection on the problems of commensurability/ incommensurability of linguistic consciousnesses of different cultures – will eventually create a common synergetic-interdisciplinary space of cooperation for the solutions of the above-mentioned issues.

Representing Physical Phenomena

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Otávio Bueno ◽  
Steven French
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Group Theory ◽  
Liquid Helium ◽  
Quantum Physics ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Partial Structures ◽  
Bose Einstein ◽  
Physical Phenomena

This chapter extends the case study on quantum mechanics to include not only the ‘top-down’ application of group theory to quantum physics but also the ‘bottom-up’ construction of models of the phenomena, with the example of London’s explanation of the superfluid behaviour of liquid helium in terms of Bose–Einstein statistics. We claim that in moving from top to bottom, from the mathematics to what is observed in the laboratory, the models involved and the relations between them can again be accommodated by the partial structures approach, coupled with an appreciation of the heuristic moves involved in scientific work. Furthermore, as in the previous examples, this case fits with our inferential account of the application of mathematics, whereby immersion of the phenomena into the relevant mathematics allows for the drawing down of structure and the derivation of certain results that can then be interpreted at the phenomenological level.

scholarly journals ABOUT QUANTUM COMPUTER AND QUANTUM MEDICINE

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 18-24
Author(s):  
M.N. Borisevich ◽  
◽  
V.I. Kozlovsky ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Integrated Circuits ◽  
Quantum Physics ◽  
Quantum Computer ◽  
Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Quantum Computers ◽  
Short Report ◽  
Max Planck ◽  
Physical Experiments ◽  
Photo Effect

The foundations of quantum physics have been laid by Max Planck, who suggested that energy couldn’t be absorbed and radiated continuously, but only in separate portions - these portions were called quanta. His ideas were confirmed in numerous physical experiments on the photo effect, the structure of the atom and atomic nucleus, brilliantly performed by Bohr and Rutherford. All this in the aggregate made it possible to eliminate the border between matter and waves, predicted by Louis de Broil. In this way the foundations of quantum mechanics were laid = Heisenberg and Schrödinger did this work. Many manifestations of quantum physics can already be observed in everyday life. These are optical quantum generators, computer CDs, and integrated circuits and lots and lots of this. In recent years, the researchers have drawn their attention to other quantum physics applications related to queries. By their design, this work will be carried out in the future by quantum computers. The article presents a short report on the quantum computer and the prospects for its use in quantum medicine.

Emergences in Quantum Measurement Processes

KronoScope ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Balian
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Quantum Physics ◽  
Equations Of Motion ◽  
Quantum Measurements ◽  
Dynamical Process ◽  
Measuring Apparatus ◽  
Fundamental Theory ◽  
Quantum Equations ◽  
Probabilistic Nature ◽  
Standing Problem

Abstract Quantum mechanics is acknowledged as the fundamental theory on which the whole fabric of physics is supposed to rely. And yet, the features of quantum measurements, processes that provide information about microscopic objects, seem to contradict the principles of quantum mechanics. We make a qualitative presentation of this long standing problem and give an idea of recent progress in the elucidation of the paradox. Although governed solely by the quantum equations of motion, the dynamical process involving the tested system and the measuring apparatus veils the quantum oddities that oppose our standard logic and gives rise to the expected properties of measurements. In spite of the irreducibly probabilistic nature of the underlying quantum physics, classical concepts emerge, such as standard probabilities, ordinary correlations, disappearance of quantum fluctuations, and the possibility of making statements about individual systems.

scholarly journals What is quantum in quantum randomness?

2018 ◽  
Vol 376 (2123) ◽  
pp. 20170322 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Grangier ◽  
A. Auffèves
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Quantum Theory ◽  
Quantum Physics ◽  
Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Quantum Systems ◽  
Contemporary Society ◽  
Quantum Thermodynamics ◽  
Quantum Randomness ◽  
Classical World ◽  
The Impact

It is often said that quantum and classical randomness are of different nature, the former being ontological and the latter epistemological. However, so far the question of ‘What is quantum in quantum randomness?’, i.e. what is the impact of quantization and discreteness on the nature of randomness, remains to be answered. In a first part, we make explicit the differences between quantum and classical randomness within a recently proposed ontology for quantum mechanics based on contextual objectivity. In this view, quantum randomness is the result of contextuality and quantization. We show that this approach strongly impacts the purposes of quantum theory as well as its areas of application. In particular, it challenges current programmes inspired by classical reductionism, aiming at the emergence of the classical world from a large number of quantum systems. In a second part, we analyse quantum physics and thermodynamics as theories of randomness, unveiling their mutual influences. We finally consider new technological applications of quantum randomness that have opened up in the emerging field of quantum thermodynamics. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘Foundations of quantum mechanics and their impact on contemporary society’.

scholarly journals How Quantum is Quantum Counterfactual Communication?

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonte R. Hance ◽  
James Ladyman ◽  
John Rarity
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Energy Transfer ◽  
Quantum Physics ◽  
Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Wave Particle Duality ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Matter Energy

AbstractQuantum Counterfactual Communication is the recently-proposed idea of using quantum physics to send messages between two parties, without any matter/energy transfer associated with the bits sent. While this has excited massive interest, both for potential ‘unhackable’ communication, and insight into the foundations of quantum mechanics, it has been asked whether this process is essentially quantum, or could be performed classically. We examine counterfactual communication, both classical and quantum, and show that the protocols proposed so far for sending signals that don’t involve matter/energy transfer associated with the bits sent must be quantum, insofar as they require wave-particle duality.

scholarly journals The Mind and the Physical World: A Psychologist's Exploration of Modern Physical Theory

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Michael Snyder
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Statistical Mechanics ◽  
Physical Theory ◽  
Physical World ◽  
Relativity Theory ◽  
Modern Theory ◽  
Newtonian Mechanics ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Three Components

The mind of man is central to the structure and functioning of the physical world. Modern physical theory indicates that the mind stands in a relationship of equals to the physical world. Both are fundamental, neither can be reduced to the other, and both require each other for their full understanding. This thesis is at odds with the view of the universe found in Newtonian mechanics as well as the generally held view among contemporary physicists of modern physical theory. Since the Renaissance, people have come to understand a great deal about the physical world, and they have gained significant control over it. This increased power over the physical world has occurred hand in hand with the assumption that the structure and functioning of the physical world is essentially independent from human cognition. According to this assumption, if a person’s cognitive capacity did not exist, the functioning of the physical world would not be fundamentally altered. This last statement is not in fact correct, and modern physical theory, and even fundamentals underlying Newtonian mechanics, provide evidence to attest to this. Nonetheless, contemporary physicists for the most part do not see that the relationship of human cognition to the physical world is radically altered in their own modern theory, theory that is supported by a great deal of empirical data. Instead, attempting to preserve the thesis that the structure and functioning of the physical world is independent of the mind while on a practical level relying on modern theory that contradicts this thesis, physicists have placed themselves in the position of wondering at times exactly what is the nature of the physical world at the same time they obtain experimental results concerning the physical world that can only be labeled astonishing in their precision and the scope of their implications. Modern physical theory consists of three main components: 1) the special and general theories of relativity; 2) quantum mechanics; and 3) statistical mechanics. There are very successful theories that have been developed on the basis of these three bedrock areas. An example is quantum electrodynamics. But these theories owe their conceptual foundation to the three components mentioned. The basic issues at the core of these three components also are expressed in these later theories. In addition, there are new unresolved issues of a fundamental nature concerning the conceptual integrity of these later theories that do not apply to quantum mechanics, relativity theory, and statistical mechanics. Quantum mechanics and relativity theory are areas I have written about for over twelve years. The nature of statistical mechanics has also been of interest to me during this time. But when I took a serious look in 1993 at Tolman’s (1938) The Principles of Statistical Mechanics, it became clear that the mind is linked to the physical world in statistical mechanics, a relationship I had found earlier in both relativity theory and quantum mechanics. It was after reading Tolman’s justification of the method of statistical mechanics in the original that I decided to write this book. When I found that the three components of modern physical theory all pointed to the same relationship between mind and the physical world, it became clear that the fundamental isolation of the mind from the physical world that has characterized our experience since the development of Newtonian mechanics is unfounded. Based on empirically supported principles of modern physical theory, I determined that the appropriate assumption for one’s experience, that the mind is linked to the physical world, could be stated with confidence. The impact of this change in assumption concerning the relationship of man to the cosmos in modern physical theory will find its way into our everyday experience. It will perhaps have no greater effect than in reducing the sense of isolation of man from the world that has characterized modern existence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document