Response to Stuart Kauffman: The Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics

Richard Feynman, a 1965 Nobel Prize winner in physics, quoting an unknown philosopher, said: “It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results.” And Feynman's reply: “Well, they don't.” Double-slit experiments with both slits open and the wave interference pattern created by electrons falling on a screen behind the slits speak volumes to those two statements and the interpretive problem created by the non-deterministic behavior of microscopic matter. Quantum mechanics (QM) with its successes over the last 85 years has created the information age, and with insights into nature has given humans an economy concentrated with products based on quantum technology. All this even with questions about the fundamental aspects of measurement in the quantum world still being debated! Discussing the measurement aspect of QM does not require a physics background where physics scholars join other scholarly disciplines engaged in gaining knowledge about the reality of the one world of human experience. The necessary tools for discussion are imagination, speculation, and curiosity. But for a new credible interpretation of the measurement problem, quantum training or a quantum theoretician is required.     

Semiclassical Theism and the Passage of Planck Times

This paper models God and time in the framework of modern physics. God bridges and simultaneously exists in (1) a universe with infinite tenseless time and (2) a created parallel universe with tensed time and a point origin. The primary attributes of God are inexhaustible love, inexhaustible perception, and inexhaustible force. The model also incorporates modern physics theories that include relativity, the conservation of energy, quantum mechanics, and multiverse geometry. For example, creation out of nothing and divine intervention are subject to physical processes and likewise nomological possibility. I will call this model semiclassical theism.     

Bohr as a Phenomenological Realist

There is confusion among scholars of Bohr as to whether he should be categorized as an instrumentalist (see Faye 1991) or a realist (see Folse 1985). I argue that Bohr is a realist, and that the confusion is due to the fact that he holds a very special view of realism, which did not coincide with the philosophers’ views. His approach was sometimes labelled instrumentalist and other times realist, because he was an instrumentalist on the theoretical level, but a realist on the level of models. Such a realist position is what I call phenomenological realism. In this paper, and by taking Bohr’s debate with Einstein as a paradigm, I try to prove that Bohr was such a realist.

空性的三方会谈

空性是宇宙的根本实相,佛学、老子、量子论各依自身的需要和目的分别进行了阐述。其三方的结论具有一定的可比性及哲学上的相似性。由此说明了她们对宇宙根本实相的认识具有深刻的统一性。     

Type indeterminacy: A model of the KT(Kahneman-Tversky)-man

In this paper, we propose to use elements of the mathematical formalism of Quantum Mechanics to capture the idea that agents’ preferences, in addition to being typically uncertain, can also be indeterminate. They are determined (i.e., realized, and not merely revealed) only when the action takes place. An agent is described by a state that is a superposition of potential types (or preferences or behaviors). This superposed state is projected (or “collapses”) onto one of the possible behaviors at the time of the interaction. In addition to the main goal of modeling uncertainty of preferences that is not due to lack of information, this formalism seems to be adequate to describe widely observed phenomena of non-commutativity in patterns of behavior. We explore some implications of our approach in a comparison between classical and type indeterminate rational choice behavior. The potential of the approach is illustrated in two examples.