Abstract
In previous works we have established that the spacetime probabilistic organization of the quantum theory is determined by the spacetime characteristics of the operations by which the observer produces the objects to be studied (“states” of microsystems) and obtains qualifications of these. Guided by this first conclusion, we have then built a “general syntax of relativized conceptualization” where any description is explicitly and systematically referred to the two basic epistemic operations by which the conceptor introduces the object to be qualified and then obtains qualifications of it. Inside this syntax there emerges a general typology of the relativized descriptions. Here we show that with respect to this typology the type of the predictive quantum mechanical descriptions acquires a precise definition. It appears that the quantum mechanical formalism has captured and has expressed directly in a mathematical language the most complex form in which can occur a first descriptional phase that lies universally at the bottom of any chain of conceptualization. The main features of the Hilbert-Dirac algorithms are decoded in terms of the general syntax of relativized conceptualization. This renders explicit the semantical contents of the quantum mechanical representations relating each one of these to its mathematical quantum mechanical expression. Basic insufficiencies are thus identified and, correlatively, false problems as well as answers to these, or guides toward answers. Globally the results obtained provide a basis for future attempts at a general mathematical representation of the processes of conceptualization.
“Il pourrait, en effet, être dangereux pour l'avenir de la Physique qu'elle se contente trop facilement de purs formalismes, d'images floues et d'explications toutes verbales s'exprimant par des mots à signification imprécise”—Louis de Broglie,Certitudes et Incertitudes de la Science (Albin Michel, Paris, 1965).
Similar content being viewed by others
References
M. Mugur-Schächter, “Spacetime quantum probabilities, relativized descriptions and Popperian propensities. Part I: Spacetime quantum probabilities,”Found. Phys. 2, 1387–1449 (1991).
M. Mugur-Schächter, “Quantum probabilities, operators of state preparation, and the principle of superposition,”Int. J. Theor. Phys. 31, 1715–1751 (1992).
M. Mugur-Schächter, “Spacetime quantum probabilities II: relativized descriptions and Popperian propensities,”Found. Phys. 22, 235–312 (1992).
R. Penrose,The Emperor's New Mind (Oxford University Press, New York, 1989).
L. Wittgenstein, “Some remarks on logical form,”Proceedings of Aristotelian Society IX (Suppl. Vol.) (Harrisson & Sons, Ltd., London, 1929).
B. Russell,Inquiry into Meaning and Truth (Allen & Unwin, London, 1941).
W. V. O. Quine,World and Object (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1960);Ontological Relativity and Other Essays (Columbia University Press, New York, 1969); Pursuit of Truth (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts, 1990).
D. T. Campbell, Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science, Selected Papers, E. Samuel Overman, ed. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1988).
M. Mugur-Schächter, “Toward a factually induced spacetime quantum logic,”Found. Phys. 22, 963–994 (1992).
B. Russell,The Principles of Mathematics (Allen & Unwin, London, 1903).
E. Kant,Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Hartenstein, 1867).
I. Pitowski,Quantum Probability—Quantum Logic (Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 321) (Springer, Berlin, 1989).
E. G. Beltrametti and M. J. Maczinski, “On a characterization of classical and nonclassical probabilities,”J. Math. Phys. 32, 1280–1286 (1991).
L. de Broglie,Recherches sur la théorie des quanta (Masson, Paris, 1963).
M. Mugur-Schächter, “Quantum mechanics and relativity: attempt at a new start,”Found. Phys. Lett. 2, 261–286 (1989).
A. Peres and W. H. Zurek, “Is quantum theory universally valid?”Am. J. Phys. 50(9), (1982).
P. Busch, P. Lahti, and P. Mittelstaedt,The quantum Theory of Measurement (Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 2) (Springer, Berlin, 1991).
P. Busch and P. Mittelstaedt, “The problem of objectification in quantum mechanics,”Found. Phys. 21, 889–904 (1991).
P. Busch, P. Lahti, and P. Mittelstaedt, “Weak objectification, joint probabilities, and Bell inequalities in quantum mechanics,”Found. Phys. 22, 949–962 (1992).
A. Peres, “Unperformed experiments have no results,”Am. J. Phys. 46(7), (1978).
A. J. Leggett, “Reflections on the quantum measurement paradox,” inQuantum Implications, B. J. Hiley and F. D. Peat, eds. (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1987).
F. Selleri,Quantum Paradoxes and Physical Reality, A. van der Merwe, ed. (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1990).
V. L. Lepore and F. Selleri, “Do performed optical tests disprove local realism?”Found. Phys. Lett. 3, 203–219 (1990).
J. Butterfield, “Bell's theorem: What it takes,”Br. J. Philos. Sci. 43, 41–83 (1992).
N. Cartwright,Nature's Capacities and Their Measurements (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989).
P. R. Holland,The quantum theory of motion (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993).
J. T. Cushing,Quantum Mechanics, Historical Contingency and the “Copenhagen” Hegemony, forthcoming.
J. P. Vigier, C. Dewdney, P. R. Holland, and A. Kyprianidis, “Causal particle trajectories and the interpretation of quantum mechanics,” inQuantum Implications, B. J. Hiley and F. D. Peat, eds. (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1987).
D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley, “The de Broglie pilot-wave theory and the further development of new insights arising out of it,”Found. Phys. 12, 1001–1016 (1982).
D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley, “Measurement understood through the quantum potential approach,”Found. Phys. 14, 255–274 (1984).
C. Dewdney, P. R. Holland, A. Kyprianidis, and J. P. Vigier, “Spin and nonlocality in quantum mechanics,”Nature (London)336, 536–544 (1988).
D. Home and F. Selleri, “Bell's theorem and the EPR paradox,”Nuovo Cimento 14, 1–95 (1991).
P. A. M. Dirac,The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1958).
G. Spencer-Brown,Laws of Form (Allen & Unwin, London, 1969).
B. d'Espagnat,A la recherche du réel (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1979).
J. Bell, “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox,”Physics 1, 195–200 (1965).
L. Szabo, “On the real meaning of Bell's theorem,” communication at the meeting “Quantum Structures '92,” Castiglioncello, Sept. 1992;Found. Phys. Lett. 6 (1993), to appear.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mugur-Schächter, M. From quantum mechanics to universal structures of conceptualization and feedback on quantum mechanics. Found Phys 23, 37–122 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01883989
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01883989