On the Nature of Reality

Science uses not only mathematics, but also inaccurate natural language to describe reality. The question is whether terms such as "beautiful" and "elegant" are applicable to describe physical laws and reality. The problem is that using such vague terms not only dilutes the description of reality, but also adds some attributes to it that may not exist, leading to greater ambiguity and illusions of understanding. * B.G. Yacobi has a PhD in physics. He held research positions at Imperial College London and Harvard University, as well as teaching positions in universities in the United States and Canada. Email: b.yacobi[a]utoronto.ca.

American Journal of Physics, 2018

Foundations of Physics, 2005

Jim Cushing emphasized that physical theory should tell us an intelligible and objective story about the world, and concluded that the Bohm theory is to be preferred over the Copenhagen interpretation. We argue here, however, that the Bohm theory is only one member of a wider class of interpretations that can be said to fulfil Cushing's desiderata. We discuss how the pictures provided by these interpretations differ from the classical one. In particular, it seems that a rather drastic form of perspectivalism is needed if accordance with special relativity is to be achieved.

Contemporary Physics, 2015

https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.10666, 2024

We suggest a contextual realist interpretation of relational quantum mechanics. The principal point is a correct understanding of the concept of reality and taking into account the categorical distinction between the ideal and the real. Within our interpretation, consciousness of the observer does not play any metaphysical role. The proposed approach can also be understood as a return to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, corrected within the framework of contextual realism. The contextual realism allows one to get rid of the metaphysical problems encountered by various interpretations of quantum mechanics, including the relational one.

Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 2018

The paper, in Part 1, is devoted to discussing the underlying logic and algebra of the classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, their syntax and semantics, the reasons for their differences and the diagrammatic representations of the two. This part of the paper also demonstrates that there are several puzzling characters of microphysical phenomena by alluding to the relevant details of the double-slit experiment. These counterintuitive results of the experiment make it difficult to explain the empirical success and realist commitments of quantum mechanics. The second part, Part 2, of the paper is concerned with the question as to how conceptual schemes of scientists interact with the world such that the problem of new meaning and reference of the microphysical terms could be determined. The paper refrains from having a general discussion on Realism and do not venture into a comprehensive survey and critique of all known varieties of realistic interpretations. It selects only a few forms of realism (based on the reasons given) in investigating microphysical phenomena forming part of QM. These selected forms of realism explain how does conceptual scheme/terms in scientific theory hookup to the objects and their relations in the world based on the model-theoretic character of the scientific theory and causal rigidified descriptivism of scientific terms (vide Putnam) as well as scientist's interaction with the world, say, in the "instrumental context of laboratory" (vide Heelan) such that the problem of meaning and reference could be resolved. The paper claims that convergence of the two views may result in a particular form of realism, the Hermeneuticized Internal Realism, appropriate for the science of microphysical phenomena.

Foundation Physics (2015) 45:1269–1300, 2015

First, this article considers the nature of quantum reality (the reality responsible for quantum phenomena) and the concept of realism (our ability to represent this reality) in quantum theory, in conjunction with the roles of locality, causality, and probability and statistics there. Second, it offers two interpretations of quantum mechanics, developed by the authors of this article, the second of which is also a different (from quantum mechanics) theory of quantum phenomena. Both of these interpretations are statistical. The first interpretation, by A. Plotnitsky, "the statistical Copenhagen interpretation ," is nonrealist, insofar as the description or even conception of the nature of quantum objects and processes is precluded. The second, by A. Khrennikov, is ultimately realist, because it assumes that the quantum-mechanical level of reality is underlain by a deeper level of reality, described, in a realist fashion, by a model, based in the pre-quantum classical statistical field theory, the predictions of which reproduce those of quantum mechanics. Moreover, because the continuous fields considered in this model are transformed into discrete clicks of detectors, experimental outcomes in this model depend on the context of measurement in accordance with N. Bohr's interpretation and the statistical Copenhagen interpretation, which coincides with N. Bohr's interpretation in this regard.

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 2000

I show how quantum mechanics, like the theory of relativity, can be understood as a 'principle theory' in Einstein's sense, and I use this notion to explore the approach to the problem of interpretation developed in my book Interpreting the Quantum World.

A theory of everything , or, grand unified theory (which Einstein had been working on without success, with Superstring Theory now being a good candidate), is one which unites all the forces of nature, viz., gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. Important as this theory might be, it is lacking in one important fundamental aspect, viz., the role of consciousness, which could in fact be considered the most fundamental aspect of physics. This paper explains that a theory of consciousness is more important than a theory of everything or grand unified theory and should be the theory of everything instead, or, at least, a part of the theory of everything.

arXiv (Cornell University), 2019

The interpretation of quantum mechanics has been discussed since this theme first was brought up by Einstein and Bohr. This article describes a proposal for a new foundation of quantum theory, partly drawing upon ideas from statistical inference theory. The approach can be said to have an intuitive basis: The quantum states of a physical system are under certain conditions in one-to-one correspondence with the following: 1) Focus on a concrete question to nature and then 2) give a definite answer to this question. This foundation implies an epistemic interpretation, depending upon the observer, but the objective world is restored when all observers agree on their observations on some variables. The article contains a survey of parts of the author's books on epistemic processes, which give more details about the theory. At the same time, the article extends some of the discussion in the books, and at places makes it more precise. For further development of interpretation issues, I need cooperation with interested physicists.

2015

Here are summarized the general provisions of the new paradigm, which is dominated by the consideration of the evolution of space as the main driving force of the universe. In this concept the introduction of the definition of materiality is essential. It is shown that the materiality has the main feature of the physical world. But this does not exhaust the concept of reality. Thus, reality is a more common feature of our world than the materiality. For physics, this is a new paradigm which follows from numerous observations of cosmic phenomena.

Philosophical Books, 1989

American Journal of Physics, 2000

This article presents a novel interpretation of quantum mechanics. It extends the meaning of "measurement" to include all property-indicating facts. Intrinsically space is undifferentiated: there are no points on which a world of locally instantiated physical properties could be built. Instead, reality is built on facts, in the sense that the properties of things are extrinsic, or supervenient on property-indicating facts. The actual extent to which the world is spatially and temporally differentiated (that is, the extent to which spatiotemporal relations and distinctions are warranted by the facts) is necessarily limited. Notwithstanding that the state vector does nothing but assign probabilities, quantum mechanics affords a complete understanding of the actual world. If there is anything that is incomplete, it is the actual world, but its incompleteness exists only in relation to a conceptual framework that is more detailed than the actual world. Two deep-seated misconceptions are responsible for the interpretational difficulties associated with quantum mechanics: the notion that the spatial and temporal aspects of the world are adequately represented by sets with the cardinality of the real numbers, and the notion of an instantaneous state that evolves in time. The latter is an unwarranted (in fact, incoherent) projection of our apparent "motion in time" into the world of physics. Equally unwarranted, at bottom, is the use of causal concepts. There nevertheless exists a "classical" domain in which language suggestive of nomological necessity may be used. Quantum mechanics not only is strictly consistent with the existence of this domain but also presupposes it in several ways.

Noûs, 2002