DOI: 10.14704/nq.2015.13.1.802

Quantum Mechanics is not Physical Reality But Mental Potentiality Because of the Law of Non-Contradiction

Franz Klaus Jansen

Abstract


Quantum mechanics have always shown great predictive successes, but also some weird aspects concerning the mathematics-reality correspondence, such as superposition of contradictory events, like a dead and alive cat. Although physicists claim that we have to live with these contradictions, a psycho-biological analysis could propose another explanation. Observation of extra-mental reality is based on direct physical contact between an object, its corresponding sense organ and its mental representation in the brain. In contrast, prediction of the future is no longer directly linked to extra-mental reality, but projects possible observations from the memory of the past into the future. Due to the uncertainty of the future, predictions require mental potentiality, meaning that it may or may not happen in extra-mental reality. Nevertheless, if past observations are regular as in classical physics, they allow predictions with high reliability, whereas if they are irregular as in quantum physics, they are limited to uncertainty and probability. Superposition in classical physics increases space or time units accordingly, whereas quantum superposition considers multiple space locations for the same object at the same time. Thus, the quantum mechanical formalism is in direct contradiction to the philosophical law of non-contradiction, which does not allow considering it as extra-mental reality. However, it has all characteristics of mental potentiality, which allows prediction of future outcomes with probability. The consideration of quantum mechanics as mental potentiality would solve the superposition problem, as well as the measurement and the non-locality problem. According to the regularity or irregularity of observation, classical or quantum mechanical formalism has to be applied for prediction of future dynamics. There is no collapse or continuation of superposition in the wave function, but simply the replacement of an uncertain prediction model by the more certain observation. With this interpretation some weird aspects could be completely eliminated.

Keywords


quantum superposition; reality; potentiality; observation; imagination;

Full Text:

Full Text PDF

References


Aerts D. A potentiality and Conceptuality Interpretation of Quantum Physics. Philosophica 2010; 83: 15-52.

Afshar SS, Flores E, McDonald KF, Knoesel E. Paradox in Wave-Particle Duality. Found Phys 2007; 37, 295.

Albert DZ. Wave function realism. In: The wave function, A. Ney and D.Z. Albert, eds. Oxford University Press, New York, 2013.

Allori V. Primitive Ontology and the Structure of Fundamental Physical Theories, in D. Albert, E Ney (eds) The Wave Function, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013.

Ballentine LE. Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development. World Scientific. 1998.

Bell JS. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Bohr N. Quantum postulate and recent developments in atomism. Naturwissenschaften 1928, 16: 245-257.

Bohm D. Quantum Theory. Prentice-Hall, New York, 1951.

Busemeyer JR, Wang Z and Townsend JT. Quantum dynamics of human decision making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2006; 50, 220-241.

Couder Y and Fort E. Single-Particle Diffraction and Interference at a Macroscopic Scale. PRL 2006; 97, 154101.

Cramer JG. The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics 1986; 58 (3): 649.

Deutsch D. The Fabric of Reality, Viking Penguin, London, 1997.

Dirac PAM. The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (2nd edition). Clarendon Press. 1947.

Everett H. Relative state formulation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics 1957; 29: 454-462.

Fine A. The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism and the Quantum Theory. (2nd ed.) University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1996.

Ghirardi GC, Rimini A and Weber T. Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Phys Rev 1986; D 34: 470.

Goldstein S. Quantum Theory without observers. Part One: Physics Today 1998; 38-42.

Gottlieb P. Aristotle on Non-contradiction. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2011.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction (Accessed 1.12. 2014)

Griffiths RB. Consistent quantum theory. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2002.

Hameroff SR and Penrose R. Conscious events as orchestrated spacetime selections. Journal of Consciousness Studies 1996; 3(1): 36-53.

Harrigan N. and Spekkens R.W. Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states. Found Phys 2010; 40: 125-157.

Heisenberg W. Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik 1927; 43: 172-198. (English translation in Weeler and Zurek, 1983: 62-84)

Heisenberg W. Physics and Philosophy, Harper and Row, New York, 1958.

Jansen FK. Partial isomorphism of superposition in potentiality systems of consciousness and quantum mechanics. NeuroQuantology 2008; 6(3): 278-288.

Jansen FK. Isomorphic concepts for uncertainty between consciousness and some interpretations of quantum mechanics. NeuroQuantology 2011; 9(4): 660-668.

Jansen FK. The Observer's Now, Past and Future in Physics from a Psycho-Biological Perspective. Cosmology 2014; 18: 376-401.

http://cosmology.com/ConsciousTime112.html (Accessed date 1.12.2014)

Illingworth V (ed). The Penguin Dictionary of Physics, Penguin Books, London, 1991.

Nelson E. Derivation of the Schrödinger Equation from Newtonian Mechanics. Physical Review 1966; 150: 1079–1085.

Penrose R. Shadows of the mind. New York: Oxford, 1994.

Rovelli C. Relational Quantum Mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 1996; 35: 1637-1678.

Schilpp PA (ed.). Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist. Library of Living Philosophers, Evanston, IL, 1949.

Schrödinger E. An Undulatory Theory of the Mechanics of Atoms and Molecules. Physical Review 1926; 28 (6): 1049–1070. In Wheeler J.A. and Zurek (eds) Quantum Theory and Measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983.

Schrödinger E. Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Qantenmechanik, Naturwissenschaften 1935; 23: 807.

Stapp H. Quantum theory in neuroscience and psychology: a neurophysical model of mind/brain interaction. Phil Trans Royal Society B 2005; 360(1458): 1309-1327.

Tarlacı S, Pregnolato M. Quantum neurophysics: From non-living matter to quantum neurobiology and psychopathology. Int J Psychophysiol. 2015 Feb 7. pii: S0167-8760(15)00046-X.

doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.02.016.

Tegmark M. Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. Knopf A. New York, 2014.

Von Neumann J. Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik, Springer, Berlin, 1932. (Translated as Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton University Press, 1955).

Wigner E. Remarks on the Mind-Body Problem, in: The Scientist Speculates, Good IJ, ed. Heinemann, London, 1961; 284-302.

Wikipedia, Copenhagen interpretation,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation (Accessed 1.12.2014)

Zeh HD. On the interpretation of measurements in quantum theory. Found Phys 1970; 1: 69-76.

Zheng-Johansson JX. Internally Electrodynamic Particle Model: Its Experimental Basis and Its Predictions. Physics of Atomic Nuclei 2010; 73(3): 571–581.

Zurek WH. Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: into what mixture does the wave packet collapse? Phys Rev 1981; D24: 1516-1525.


Supporting Agencies

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.



| NeuroScience + QuantumPhysics> NeuroQuantology :: Copyright 2001-2019