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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Clearly, for non-uniform elastic bands, the “scissor-RNG” procedure (Def. 6) cannot anymore be considered as equivalent to the original procedure (Def. 5).
What a suitable number exactly means should of course be specified, but this would unnecessarily complicate the discussion. Let us simply assume that we possess a criterion, which we don’t need to specify here, to determine the exact number of stacks of paper and human beings to be used in a given location, considering for instance its dimensions.
In Sassoli de Bianchi (2013b) we have remarked that the positions measured in Aert’s quantum machine Aerts (1998, 1999a, b) are not relational properties. This may appear in contradiction with our present analysis, considering that positions are observed by means of observational processes that contain a random selection mechanism and an irreducible invasiveness. However, a closer analysis reveals that the surface of the three-dimensional Euclidean sphere on which the particle lives, plays in fact a double role, as it is also part of the measuring apparatus. Therefore, one cannot in this model completely separate the measuring apparatus from the entity, which is the reason why at the end of the observation the property remain actual and can be re-observed with certainty.
Aerts, D. (1982). Description of many physical entities without the paradoxes encountered in quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 12, 1131–1170.
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.
Aerts, D. (1986). A possible explanation for the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 27, 202–210.
Aerts, D. (1994). Quantum structures, separated physical entities and probability. Foundations of Physics, 24, 1227.
Aerts, D. (1995). Quantum structures: An attempt to explain the origin of their appearance in nature. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 34, 1165.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Aerts, D. (2009). Quantum particles as conceptual entities: A possible explanatory framework for quantum theory. Foundations of Science, 14, 361–411.
Aerts, D. (2010a). Interpreting quantum particles as conceptual entities. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 49, 2950–2970.
Aerts, D. (2010b). A potentiality and conceptuality interpretation of quantum physics. Philosophica, 83, 15–52.
Aerts, D. (2011). Quantum theory and conceptuality: Matter, stories, sematics and space–time. arXiv:1110.4766[quant-ph].
Aerts, D., & Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2014a). The unreasonable success of quantum probability I: Quantum measurements as uniform measurements. arXiv:1401.2647[quant-ph].
Aerts, D., & Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2014b). The unreasonable success of quantum probability II: Quantum measurements as universal measurements. arXiv:1401.2650[quant-ph].
Baltag, A., & Smets, S. (2011). Quantum logic as a dynamic logic. Synthese, 179, 285–306.
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.
Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2011). Ephemeral properties and the illusion of microscopic particles. Foundations of Science, 16(4), 393–409.
Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2012). From permanence to total availability: A quantum conceptual upgrade. Foundations of Science, 17(3), 223–244.
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.
Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2013b). The observer effect. Foundations of Science, 18(2), 213–243.
Gomatam, R. V. (1999). Quantum theory and the observation problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(11–12), 173–190.
Piron, C. (1990). Mécanique quantique. Bases et applications. Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Lausanne (Second corrected edition 1998), First Edition.
Piron, C. (1976). Foundations of quantum physics. Massachusetts: W. A. Benjamin Inc.
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.
Rovelli, C. (1996). Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35, 1637.
About this article
Cite this article
Sassoli de Bianchi, M. God May Not Play Dice, But Human Observers Surely Do. Found Sci 20, 77–105 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-014-9352-4
- Quantum measurement
- Quantum probabilities
- Relational properties