, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 147–169 | Cite as

The Expressional Limits of Formal Language in the Notion of Quantum Observation

Invited paper


In this article I deal with the notion of observation, from a phenomenologically motivated point of view, and its representation mainly by means of the formal language of quantum mechanics. In doing so, I have taken the notion of observation in two diverse contexts. In one context as a notion related with objects of a logical-mathematical theory taken as registered facts of phenomenological perception (Wahrnehmung) inasmuch as this phenomenological idea can also be linked with a process of measurement on the quantum-mechanical level. In another context I have taken it as connected with a notion of temporal constitution basically as it is described in E. Husserl’s texts on the phenomenology of temporal consciousness. Given that mathematical objects as formal-ontological objects can be thought of as abstractions of perceptual objects by means of categorial intuition, the question is whether and under what theoretical assumptions we can, in principle, include quantum objects in abstraction in the class of formal-ontological objects and thus inquire on the limits of their description within a formal-axiomatical theory. On the one hand, I derive an irreducibility on the level of individuals taken in formal representation as syntactical atoms-substrates without any further content and on the other hand a transcendental subjectivity of consciousness objectified as a self-constituted temporal unity upon which it is ultimately grounded the possibility of generation of an abstract predicative universe of discourse.


Ego of consciousness Individual Intentionality Non-separability Quantum measurement Quantum object Temporal continuum 


  1. Adams R (1979) Primitive thisness and primitive identity. J Philos 76(1):5–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anastopoulos C (2001) Continuous-time histories: observables, probabilities, phase space structure and the classical limit. J Math Phys 42(8):3225–3259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anastopoulos C, Savvidou D (2006) Time-of-arrival probabilities and quantum measurements. J Math Phys 47:122106-1–122106-29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohm D, Hiley BJ (1993) The undivided universe. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bitbol M (1998) Some steps towards a transcendental deduction of quantum mechanics. Philos Nat 35:253–280Google Scholar
  6. dalla Chiara ML (1977) Logical self reference, set theoretical paradoxes and the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. J Philos Logic 6:331–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dieks D, Versteegh M (2007) Identical quantum particles and weak discernibility. arXiv: quant-ph/0703021v1, 1–11Google Scholar
  8. Everett HD (1957a) ‘Relative state’ formulation of quantum mechanics. Rev Mod Phys 29:454–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Everett HD (1957b) The theory of the universal wave function. Ph.D. thesis, Princeton. (Reprinted in De Witt BS, Graham N, The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics., Princeton University Press, 1973)Google Scholar
  10. Faris W (1996) Review of Roland Omnés, the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Notices AMS 43(11):1328–1339Google Scholar
  11. Farrukh MO (1975) Application of nonstandard analysis to quantum mechanics. J Math Phys 16(2):177–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feferman S (1999) Does mathematics need new axioms?. Am Math Mon 106:99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Francis CE (1981) Applications of non-standard analysis to relativistic quantum mechanics. J Phys A Math Gen 14:2539–2551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. French S (2002) A phenomenological solution to the measurement problem? Husserl and the foundations of quantum mechanics. Stud Hist Philos Mod Phys 33:467–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. French S (2006) Identity and individuality in quantum theory. In: Zalta N (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Spring 2006 edition, pp 1–18.
  16. French S (1989) Identity and individuality in classical and quantum physics. Aust J Philos 67(4):432–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. French S, Krause D (2006) Identity in physics: a historical, philosophical and formal analysis. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Grib AA (1993) Quantum logical interpretation of quantum mechanics: the role of time. Int J Theor Phys 32(12):2389–2400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heelan P (1988) Space-perception and the philosophy of science. University of California Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  20. Husserl E (1962) Die Krisis der Europäischen Wissenschaften und die Transzendentale Phanomenologie, Hua VI, hgb. M. Nijhoff, Walter Biemel, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  21. Husserl E (1966a) Zur Phänomenologie des Inneren Zeibewusstseins, Hua X, hgb. M. Nijhoff, Rudolf Boehm, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  22. Husserl E (1966b) Analysen zur Passiven Synthesis, Hua XI, hgb. M. Nijhoff, M. Fleischer, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  23. Husserl E (1974) Formale und Transzendentale Logik, Hua XVII, hgb. M. Nijhoff, Paul Janssen, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  24. Husserl E (1995) Ideen zu einer Reinen Phänomenologie und Phänomenologischen Philosophie, Erstes Buch. Hua III/I. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  25. Husserl E (2001) Die Bernauer Manusckripte über das Zeitbewusstsein (1917/18), herausg. R. Bernet & D. Lohmar. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  26. Isham CJ (1994) Quantum logic and the histories approach to quantum theory. J Math Phys 35:2157–2185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Isham CJ, Linden N (1994) Quantum temporal logic and decoherence functionals in the histories approach to generalised quantum theory. J Math Phys 35:5452–5476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karakostas V (2004) Forms of quantum nonseparability and related philosophical consquences. J Gen Philos Sci 35:283–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karakostas V (2007) Nonseparability, potentiality, and the context-dependence of quantum objects. J Gen Philos Sci 38:279–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krause D (1992) On a quasi-set theory. Notre Dame J Form Logic 33(3):402–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krause D, Coelho AMN (2005) Identity, indiscernibility, and philosophical claims. Axiomathes 15:191–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krause D, Da Costa NCA (2007) Logical and philosophical remarks on quasi-set theory. Logic J IGPL 1–11Google Scholar
  33. Livadas S (2005) The phenomenological roots of nonstandard mathematics. Rom J Inf Sci Technol 8(2):115–136Google Scholar
  34. London F, Bauer E (1983) The theory of observation in quantum mechanics. In: Wheeler JA, Zurek WH (eds) Quantum theory and measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 217–259Google Scholar
  35. Lurcat F (2007) Understanding quantum mechanics with Bohr and Husserl. In: Boi L, Krezberg P, Patras F (eds) Rediscovering phenomenology. Springer, Dordrect, pp 229–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Primas H (1993) The Cartesian cut, the Heisenberg cut, and disentangled observers. In: Laurikainen KV, Montonen C (eds) Symposia on the foundations of modern physics. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 245–269Google Scholar
  37. Ryder L (1996) Quantum field theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Saunders S (2006) Are quantum particles objects?. Analysis 66:52–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sokolowski R (1974) Husserlian meditations. Northwestern University Press, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
  40. Tieszen R (1984) Mathematical intuition and Husserl’s phenomenology. Nous 18(3):395–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tieszen R (2005) Phenomenology, logic, and the philosophy of mathematics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van Fraasen B (1991) Quantum mechanics: an empiricist view. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Zeh HD (1970) On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory. Found Phys 1(1):69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations