66. "There is NO DEEP REALITY", excerpts from "Paradigms Lost: Tackling the Unanswered Mysteries of Modern Science", by John L. Casti, 1990

Excerptsfrom

"Paradigms Lost:
Tackling
the
Unanswered Mysteries
of Modern Science",

by
John L. Casti,

Avon Books,

New York, 1990

Bohr's position
on reality
is simple:
There is
no
deep reality.
 
Just that.
 
No
deep reality
of any kind
whatsoever.
 
The implication
of
such a claim
is that
quantum objects
in
their
unmeasured state
literally
have
no
dynamic attributes.
 
In contrast
to
the pragmatists,
who might say
that the question
of
the existence
of
such attributes
is
literally meaningless,
the
Copenhagen Interpretation
developed
by Bohr
goes much farther.
 
Copenhagenists
say
that such
attributes
definitely
do not exist.
 
Or,
more accurately,
whatever attributes
objects might possess
are
contextual:
They depend upon
the
measurement situation,
so
they cannot
be ascribed
to
the object
independent of
the
measuring device
and
the
act of measurement.
 
This claim
gives rise
to
Bohr's famous
Complementarity Principle,
which states
that
whether
the object displays
wave properties
or
particle properties
depends upon
the
measurement situation
and
not just
on
the object itself.
 
In other words,
the
Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle
is
an
intrinsic property
of Nature,
and that
the observer,
the
measuring device,
and the system
to be measured
form
a whole
that cannot
be divided.
 
More prosaically,
we might express
this
wave-particle
complementarity
idea
using Bohr's
own phrase:
"The opposite
of a big truth
is also
a big truth."
[p. 442]
 
+++
 
... von Neumann
showed
that
if the predictions
of
quantum mechanics
are correct,
then the world
cannot
be made out of
ordinary objects
possessing
innate attributes.
 
In fact,
by this result
the world
cannot
even
be constructed
out of
combinations
of
unobservable
ordinary objects.
 
This conclusion
seems to
banish forever
any kind
of
hidden variable
theory
from
the reality game.
 
[p. 444]
 
+++
 
Although
he never
actually said so
in print,
one can infer
from
his many parables
and
remarks
on the matter
that
his
"Cut Theorem"
forced
von Neumann
into
taking refuge
in
human consciousness
as
the
final "collapsor"
of
the
wave function.
[p. 445]
 
+++
 
Wigner's interpretation
of
the
foregoing experiment
is that
quantum theory
breaks down
when
the
conscious awareness
of
the observer
is involved.
 
For Wigner
his own
conscious mind
is
the basic reality,
and
the
things in the world
"out there"
are
not much more than
useful constructions
built
out of
his
own past experiences,
somehow
coded
into his consciousness.
 
In this picture
of reality,
the moment
when
the information
about an object
enters
the consciousness
of
an observer
is when
the
mathematical
wave function
collapses
into
physical reality.
 
Despite
the stature
of its supporters,
the feeling
of
most physicists today
when they hear
this kind
of explanation
is aptly
summed up
by
Stephen Hawking's
remark:
"When I hear of
Schodinger's Cat,
I reach for my gun."
 
[...]
 
Texas
may call itself
the
Lone Star State
but Texans
have always
done things
in a big way,
so
when
the agenda item
is
reality generation
no one
will be surprised
to find
that the "lone star"
is
magically
transformed
into
an
entire universe
of
glowing objects,
the
centerpiece
being
nothing less than
the
meaning
of
meaning
itself.
 
The chief architect
of this
Texas-sized version
of
reality
is
John A. Wheeler,
director of
the
Center for Theoretical Physics
at the
University of Texas at Austin.
 
The heart of
the
Austin Interpretation
championed
by Wheeler
is
the idea of
a reality
created
by the observer
through
exercise
of
the
measurement option.
 
The Austin school
believes
that we are
wrong
to think of
the past
as having
a
definite existence
"out there".
 
The past
exists
only insofar
as it is
present
in
the records
we have today.
 
And
the very nature
of
those records
is
dictated by
the
measurement choices
we exercised
in
generating them.
 
Thus,
if we chose
to measure
an
electron's position
yesterday
in the lab
and
recorded
the
resulting
observation,
then
that electron's
position
from yesterday
exists
but its velocity
doesn't.
 
Why not?
 
Simply
because
we chose
to measure
the position
and
not
the velocity.
 
Because
this very act
of
choosing
is
always involved
in
what
we measure,
Wheeler feels
that
the act
of observation
is
"an elementary act
of creation."
 
In actuality,
the
Austin Interpretation
doesn't go
quite so far
as to claim
that these choices
dictate
the reality
of
macro-world objects
like tennis balls,
but
rather
confines its claims
to
the micro-world
of
quantum objects
like electrons.
 
Nevertheless,
Wheeler's message
is clear:
"No elementary
phenomenon
is
a phenomenon
until it is
an
observed
phenomenon."
[p. 446 - 447]
 
+++