Search

The argument of this article is threefold. First, the article argues that from its rise in the sixteenth century to our own time, the advancement of modern physics as mathematical-experimental science has been defined by the invention of new mathematical structures. Second, the article argues that quantum theory, especially following quantum mechanics, gives this thesis a radically new meaning by virtue of the following two features: on the one hand, quantum phenomena are defined as essentially different from those found in all previous physics by purely physical features; and on the other, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory are defined by purely mathematical postulates, which connect them to quantum phenomena strictly in terms of probabilities, without, as in all previous physics, representing or otherwise relating to how these phenomena physically come about. While these two features may appear discordant, if not inconsistent, I argue that they are in accord with each other, at least in certain interpretations (including the one adopted here), designated as “reality without realism”, RWR, interpretations. This argument also allows this article to offer a new perspective on a thorny problem of the relationships between continuity and discontinuity in quantum physics. In particular, rather than being concerned only with the discreteness and continuity of quantum objects or phenomena, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory relate their continuous mathematics to the irreducibly discrete quantum phenomena in terms of probabilistic predictions while, at least in RWR interpretations, precluding a representation or even conception of how these phenomena come about. This subject is rarely, if ever, discussed apart from previous work by the present author. It is, however, given a new dimension in this article which introduces, as one of its main contributions, a new principle: the mathematical complexity principle.

This article reconsiders E. Schrödinger’s cat paradox experiment from a new perspective, grounded in the interpretation of quantum mechanics that belongs to the class of interpretations designated as “reality without realism” (RWR) interpretations. These interpretations assume that the reality ultimately responsible for quantum phenomena is beyond conception, an assumption designated as the Heisenberg postulate. Accordingly, in these interpretations, quantum physics is understood in terms of the relationships between what is thinkable and what is unthinkable, with, physical, classical, and quantum, corresponding to thinkable and unthinkable, respectively. The role of classical physics becomes unavoidable in quantum physics, the circumstance designated as the Bohr postulate, which restores to classical physics its position as part of fundamental physics, a position commonly reserved for quantum physics and relativity. This view of quantum physics and relativity is maintained by this article as well but is argued to be sufficient for understanding fundamental physics. Establishing this role of classical physics is a distinctive contribution of the article, which allows it to reconsider Schrödinger’s cat experiment, but has a broader significance for understanding fundamental physics. RWR interpretations have not been previously applied to the cat experiment, including by N. Bohr, whose interpretation, in its ultimate form (he changed it a few times), was an RWR interpretation. The interpretation adopted in this article follows Bohr’s interpretation, based on the Heisenberg and Bohr postulates, but it adds the Dirac postulate, stating that the concept of a quantum object only applies at the time of observation and not independently.

This article addresses the effectiveness of the predictive modeling of cognition and behavior based on quantum principles and some of the reasons for this effectiveness. It also aims, however, to explore the limitations of mathematical modeling so based, quantum-like (Q-L) modeling, and all mathematical modeling, including classical-like (C-L), in considering human cognition and behavior. It will discuss certain alternative approaches to both, essentially philosophical in nature, although sometimes found in literary works, approaches that, while not quantitative, may help compensate for limitations of mathematical modeling there. Most Q-L and C-L approaches beyond physics are realist, insofar as they offer representations of human thinking by the formalism of quantum or classical physical theories. The position adopted in this article is based on the non-realist assumption that such a representation may not be possible, which is not the same as that it is impossible. I designate interpretations that do not make this assumption reality-without-realism, RWR, interpretations, and in considering mental processes as ideality-without-idealism, IWI, interpretations.

This article considers a rarely discussed aspect, the no-cloning principle or postulate, recast as the uniqueness postulate, of the mathematical modeling known as quantum-like, Q-L, modeling (vs. classical-like, C-L, modeling, based in the mathematics adopted from classical physics) and the corresponding Q-L theories beyond physics. The principle is a transfer of the no-cloning principle (arising from the no-cloning theorem) in quantum mechanics (QM) to Q-L theories. My interest in this principle, to be related to several other key features of QM and Q-L theories, such as the irreducible role of observation, complementarity, and probabilistic causality, is connected to a more general question: What are the ontological and epistemological reasons for using Q-L models vs. C-L ones? I shall argue that adopting the uniqueness postulate is justified in Q-L theories and adds an important new motivation for doing so and a new venue for considering this question. In order to properly ground this argument, the article also offers a discussion along similar lines of QM, providing a new angle on Bohr’s concept of complementarity via the uniqueness postulate.

This article reconsiders the double-slit experiment from the nonrealist or, in terms of this article, “reality-without-realism” (RWR) perspective, grounded in the combination of three forms of quantum discontinuity: (1) “Heisenberg discontinuity”, defined by the impossibility of a representation or even conception of how quantum phenomena come about, even though quantum theory (such as quantum mechanics or quantum field theory) predicts the data in question strictly in accord with what is observed in quantum experiments); (2) “Bohr discontinuity”, defined, under the assumption of Heisenberg discontinuity, by the view that quantum phenomena and the data observed therein are described by classical and not quantum theory, even though classical physics cannot predict them; and (3) “Dirac discontinuity” (not considered by Dirac himself, but suggested by his equation), according to which the concept of a quantum object, such as a photon or electron, is an idealization only applicable at the time of observation and not to something that exists independently in nature. Dirac discontinuity is of particular importance for the article’s foundational argument and its analysis of the double-slit experiment.

This article discusses the relationships between Thomas Pynchon’s novels and the philosophy of chance and probability, especially in connection with quantum theory, which radically redefined our thinking concerning both concepts, and to begin with, the nature of physical reality. The article considers how different scientific theories dealing with chance and probability figure in Pynchon’s major novels, which, the article argues, helps us to think more deeply about Pynchon’s use of these theories or other mathematical and scientific theories, and about the relationships among literature, philosophy, and mathematics and science in general.

The article argues that—at least in certain interpretations, such as the one assumed in this article under the heading of “reality without realism”—the quantum-theoretical situation appears as follows: While—in terms of probabilistic predictions—connected to and connecting the information obtained in quantum phenomena, the mathematics of quantum theory (QM or QFT), which is continuous, does not represent and is discontinuous with both the emergence of quantum phenomena and the physics of these phenomena, phenomena that are physically discontinuous with each other as well. These phenomena, and thus this information, are described by classical physics. All actually available information (in the mathematical sense of information theory) is classical: it is composed of units, such as bits, that are—or are contained in—entities described by classical physics. On the other hand, classical physics cannot predict this information when it is created, as manifested in measuring instruments, in quantum experiments, while quantum theory can. In this epistemological sense, this information is quantum. The article designates the discontinuity between quantum theory and the emergence of quantum phenomena the “Heisenberg discontinuity”, because it was introduced by W. Heisenberg along with QM, and the discontinuity between QM or QFT and the classical physics of quantum phenomena, the “Bohr discontinuity”, because it was introduced as part of Bohr’s interpretation of quantum phenomena and QM, under the assumption of Heisenberg discontinuity. Combining both discontinuities precludes QM or QFT from being connected to either physical reality, that ultimately responsible for quantum phenomena or that of these phenomena themselves, other than by means of probabilistic predictions concerning the information, classical in character, contained in quantum phenomena. The nature of quantum information is, in this view, defined by this situation. A major implication, discussed in the Conclusion, is the existence and arguably the necessity of two—classical and quantum—or with relativity, three and possibly more essentially different theories in fundamental physics.

This article reconsiders the concept of physical reality in quantum theory and the concept of quantum measurement, following Bohr, whose analysis of quantum measurement led him to his concept of a (quantum) “phenomenon,” referring to “the observations obtained under the specified circumstances,” in the interaction between quantum objects and measuring instruments. This situation makes the terms “observation” and “measurement,” as conventionally understood, inapplicable. These terms are remnants of classical physics or still earlier history, from which classical physics inherited it. As defined here, a quantum measurement does not measure any preexisting property of the ultimate constitution of the reality responsible for quantum phenomena. An act of measurement establishes a quantum phenomenon by an interaction between the instrument and the quantum object or in the present view the ultimate constitution of the reality responsible for quantum phenomena and, at the time of measurement, also quantum objects. In the view advanced in this article, in contrast to that of Bohr, quantum objects, such as electrons or photons, are assumed to exist only at the time of measurement and not independently, a view that redefines the concept of quantum object as well. This redefinition becomes especially important in high-energy quantum regimes and quantum field theory and allows this article to define a new concept of quantum field. The article also considers, now following Bohr, the quantum measurement as the entanglement between quantum objects and measurement instruments. The argument of the article is grounded in the concept “reality without realism” (RWR), as underlying quantum measurement thus understood, and the view, the RWR view, of quantum theory defined by this concept. The RWR view places a stratum of physical reality thus designated, here the reality ultimately responsible for quantum phenomena, beyond representation or knowledge, or even conception, and defines the corresponding set of interpretations quantum mechanics or quantum field theory, such as the one assumed in this article, in which, again, not only quantum phenomena but also quantum objects are (idealizations) defined by measurement. As such, the article also offers a broadly conceived response to J. Bell’s argument “against ‘measurement’”.

This article considers a partly philosophical question: What are the ontological and epistemological reasons for using quantum-like models or theories (models and theories based on the mathematical formalism of quantum theory) vs. classical-like ones (based on the mathematics of classical physics), in considering human thinking and decision making? This question is only partly philosophical because it also concerns the scientific understanding of the phenomena considered by the theories that use mathematical models of either type, just as in physics itself, where this question also arises as a physical question. This is because this question is in effect: What are the physical reasons for using, even if not requiring, these types of theories in considering quantum phenomena, which these theories predict fully in accord with the experiment? This is clearly also a physical, rather than only philosophical, question and so is, accordingly, the question of whether one needs classical-like or quantum-like theories or both (just as in physics we use both classical and quantum theories) in considering human thinking in psychology and related fields, such as decision science. It comes as no surprise that many of these reasons are parallel to those that are responsible for the use of QM and QFT in the case of quantum phenomena. Still, the corresponding situations should be understood and justified in terms of the phenomena considered, phenomena defined by human thinking, because there are important differences between these phenomena and quantum phenomena, which this article aims to address. In order to do so, this article will first consider quantum phenomena and quantum theory, before turning to human thinking and decision making, in addressing which it will also discuss two recent quantum-like approaches to human thinking, that by M. G. D’Ariano and F. Faggin and that by A. Khrennikov. Both approaches are ontological in the sense of offering representations, different in character in each approach, of human thinking by the formalism of quantum theory. Whether such a representation, as opposed to only predicting the outcomes of relevant experiments, is possible either in quantum theory or in quantum-like theories of human thinking is one of the questions addressed in this article. The philosophical position adopted in it is that it may not be possible to make this assumption, which, however, is not the same as saying that it is impossible. I designate this view as the reality-without-realism, RWR, view and in considering strictly mental processes as the ideality-without-idealism, IWI, view, in the second case in part following, but also moving beyond, I. Kant’s philosophy.

Following the view of several leading quantum-information theorists, this paper argues that quantum phenomena, including those exhibiting quantum correlations (one of their most enigmatic features), and quantum mechanics may be best understood in quantum-informational terms. It also argues that this understanding is implicit already in the work of some among the founding figures of quantum mechanics, in particular W. Heisenberg and N. Bohr, half a century before quantum information theory emerged and confirmed, and gave a deeper meaning to, to their insights. These insights, I further argue, still help this understanding, which is the main reason for considering them here. My argument is grounded in a particular interpretation of quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics, in part arising from these insights as well. This interpretation is based on the concept of reality without realism, RWR (which places the reality considered beyond representation or even conception), introduced by this author previously, in turn, following Heisenberg and Bohr, and in response to quantum information theory.

The history of mathematical modeling outside physics has been dominated by the use of classical mathematical models, C-models, primarily those of a probabilistic or statistical nature. More recently, however, quantum mathematical models, Q-models, based in the mathematical formalism of quantum theory have become more prominent in psychology, economics, and decision science. The use of Q-models in these fields remains controversial, in part because it is not entirely clear whether Q-models are necessary for dealing with the phenomena in question or whether C-models would still suffice. My aim, however, is not to assess the necessity of Q-models in these fields, but instead to reflect on what the possible applicability of Q-models may tell us about the corresponding phenomena there, vis-à-vis quantum phenomena in physics. In order to do so, I shall first discuss the key reasons for the use of Q-models in physics. In particular, I shall examine the fundamental principles that led to the development of quantum mechanics. Then I shall consider a possible role of similar principles in using Q-models outside physics. Psychology, economics, and decision science borrow already available Q-models from quantum theory, rather than derive them from their own internal principles, while quantum mechanics was derived from such principles, because there was no readily available mathematical model to handle quantum phenomena, although the mathematics ultimately used in quantum did in fact exist then. I shall argue, however, that the principle perspective on mathematical modeling outside physics might help us to understand better the role of Q-models in these fields and possibly to envision new models, conceptually analogous to but mathematically different from those of quantum theory, that may be helpful or even necessary there or in physics itself. I shall, in closing, suggest one possible type of such models, singularized probabilistic models, SP-models, some of which are time-dependent, TDSP-models. The necessity of using such models may change the nature of mathematical modeling in science and, thus, the nature of science, as it happened in the case of Q-models, which not only led to a revolutionary transformation of physics but also opened new possibilities for scientific thinking and mathematical modeling beyond physics.

The article reconsiders quantum theory in terms of the following principle, which can be symbolically represented as QUANTUMNESS → PROBABILITY → ALGEBRA and will be referred to as the QPA principle. The principle states that the quantumness of physical phenomena, that is, the specific character of physical phenomena known as quantum, implies that our predictions concerning them are irreducibly probabilistic, even in dealing with quantum phenomena resulting from the elementary individual quantum behavior (such as that of elementary particles), which in turn implies that our theories concerning these phenomena are fundamentally algebraic, in contrast to more geometrical classical or relativistic theories, although these theories, too, have an algebraic component to them. It follows that one needs to find an algebraic scheme able make these predictions in a given quantum regime. Heisenberg was first to accomplish this in the case of quantum mechanics, as matrix mechanics, whose matrix character testified to his algebraic method, as Einstein characterized it. The article explores the implications of the Heisenberg method and of the QPA principle for quantum theory, and for the relationships between mathematics and physics there, from a nonrealist or, in terms of this article, “reality-without-realism” or RWR perspective, defining the RWR principle, thus joined to the QPA principle.

The case of Kant's Critique of Judgment offers a powerful example of the radical disruption of the metaphysical text, enacted by Bataille's major сoncepts. The analysis of the metaphor of economy in Kant, Bataille and Derrida suggests the crucial importance of Bataille's general economy— as the economy of loss —for deconstructing the Kantian conception of genius and the whole scheme of taste— as an economy of consumption —and inscribing a complex interplay forces that the general economy is designed to account for. Once however taste, art and the economy of genius can no longer be inscribed through the restricted economy of the metaphysical text, the question of genre and style of a different inscription—a general economy—acquires a crucial significance. Bataille's own discursive practice can be seen as an exemplification of such a different— plural — style.