Foundations of Science

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 77–105 | Cite as

God May Not Play Dice, But Human Observers Surely Do

Article

Abstract

We investigate indeterminism in physical observations. For this, we introduce a distinction between genuinely indeterministic (creation-1 and discovery-1) observational processes, and fully deterministic (creation-2 and discovery-2) observational processes, which we analyze by drawing a parallel between the localization properties of microscopic entities, like electrons, and the lateralization properties of macroscopic entities, like simple elastic bands. We show that by removing the randomness incorporated in certain of our observational processes, acquiring over them a better control, we also alter these processes in such a radical way that in the end they do not correspond anymore to the observation of the same property. We thus conclude that a certain amount of indeterminism must be accepted and welcomed in our physical observations, as we cannot get rid of it without also diminishing our discriminative power. We also provide in our analysis some elements of clarification regarding the non-spatial nature of microscopic entities, which we illustrate by using an analogy with the process of objectification of human concepts. Finally, the important notion of relational properties is properly defined, and the role played by indeterminism in their characterization clarified.

Keywords

Observation Quantum measurement Creation Discovery Quantum probabilities Localization Non-spatiality Control Concepts Relational properties 

References

  1. Aerts, D. (1982). Description of many physical entities without the paradoxes encountered in quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 12, 1131–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aerts, D. (1984). The missing element of reality in the description of quantum mechanics of the EPR paradox situation. Helvetica Physica Acta, 57, 421–428.Google Scholar
  3. Aerts, D. (1986). A possible explanation for the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 27, 202–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aerts, D. (1994). Quantum structures, separated physical entities and probability. Foundations of Physics, 24, 1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aerts, D. (1995). Quantum structures: An attempt to explain the origin of their appearance in nature. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 34, 1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aerts, D. (1998). The entity and modern physics: The creation-discovery view of reality. In E. Castellani (Ed.), Interpreting bodies: Classical and quantum objects in modern physics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Aerts, D., et al. (1990). An attempt to imagine parts of the reality of the micro-world. In J. Mizerski (Ed.), Problems in quantum physics II; Gdansk ’89 (pp. 3–25). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  8. Aerts, D. (1999a). The stuff the world is made of: Physics and reality. In D. Aerts, J. Broekaert, E. Mathijs (eds.) The white book of ‘Einstein meets magritte’ (pp. 129–183). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, p. 274.Google Scholar
  9. Aerts, D. (1999b). Quantum mechanics: Structures, axioms and paradoxes. In D. Aerts, J. Broekaert, E. Mathijs (eds.) The indigo book of ‘Einstein meets magritte’ (pp. 141–205). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, p. 239.Google Scholar
  10. Aerts, D. (2002a). Being and change: Foundations of a realistic operational formalism. In Probing the structure of quantum mechanics: Nonlinearity, nonlocality, computation and axiomatics (pp. 71–110). World Scientific, Singapore, p. 394.Google Scholar
  11. Aerts, D. (2002b). Reality and probability: Introducing a new type of probability calculus. In Probing the structure of quantum mechanics: Nonlinearity, nonlocality, computation and axiomatics (pp. 205–229). World Scientific, Singapore, p. 394.Google Scholar
  12. Aerts, D. (2009). Quantum particles as conceptual entities: A possible explanatory framework for quantum theory. Foundations of Science, 14, 361–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Aerts, D. (2010a). Interpreting quantum particles as conceptual entities. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 49, 2950–2970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Aerts, D. (2010b). A potentiality and conceptuality interpretation of quantum physics. Philosophica, 83, 15–52.Google Scholar
  15. Aerts, D. (2011). Quantum theory and conceptuality: Matter, stories, sematics and space–time. arXiv:1110.4766[quant-ph].
  16. Aerts, D., & Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2014a). The unreasonable success of quantum probability I: Quantum measurements as uniform measurements. arXiv:1401.2647[quant-ph].
  17. Aerts, D., & Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2014b). The unreasonable success of quantum probability II: Quantum measurements as universal measurements. arXiv:1401.2650[quant-ph].
  18. Baltag, A., & Smets, S. (2011). Quantum logic as a dynamic logic. Synthese, 179, 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coecke, B. (1998). A representation for compound quantum systems as individual entities: Hard acts of creation and hidden correlations. Foundations of Physics, 28, 1109–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2011). Ephemeral properties and the illusion of microscopic particles. Foundations of Science, 16(4), 393–409.Google Scholar
  21. Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2012). From permanence to total availability: A quantum conceptual upgrade. Foundations of Science, 17(3), 223–244.Google Scholar
  22. Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2013a). The \(\delta \)-quantum machine, the \(k\)-model, and the non-ordinary spatiality of quantum entities. Foundations of Science, 18(1), 11–41.Google Scholar
  23. Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2013b). The observer effect. Foundations of Science, 18(2), 213–243.Google Scholar
  24. Gomatam, R. V. (1999). Quantum theory and the observation problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(11–12), 173–190.Google Scholar
  25. Piron, C. (1990). Mécanique quantique. Bases et applications. Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Lausanne (Second corrected edition 1998), First Edition.Google Scholar
  26. Piron, C. (1976). Foundations of quantum physics. Massachusetts: W. A. Benjamin Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Piron, C. (1978). La Description d’un Système Physique et le Présupposé de la Théorie Classique. Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 3, 131–152.Google Scholar
  28. Rovelli, C. (1996). Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35, 1637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratorio di Autoricerca di BaseLuganoSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations