Subjectivity, Epistemology, and Quantum Mechanics: Making Way for Intersubjectivity
Tags: Philosophy, Epistemology, Physics

Photo by Moritz Kindler on Unsplash

Advocating for subjective interpretation to better understand and explain certain characteristics in quantum mechanics is an emergent phenomenon in theoretical physics. This, in part, is due to a paradigm shift in theoretical physics. We need a different way of understanding conceptual discontinuities between general relativity, or classical mechanics, and quantum mechanics.

General relativity or classical mechanics assert that the laws of physics are the same regardless of one’s state of motion, whereas quantum mechanics explain and describe the motion and nature of subatomic particles mathematically. Recent discoveries in quantum mechanics give rise to misunderstandings of how a phenomenon in classical mechanics works differently in a quantum state.

The goal of many physicists in this field is to discover a unified quantum field theory that joins classical mechanics or general relativity to quantum mechanics. In order to do so, it is imperative that subjective interpretation be used to explain quantum behavior and fill gaps that removed objectification cannot. Many scholars in both the humanities and physics have written about and studied the function and applicability of a humanist-based understanding of science.

Moreover, in advocating for a humanist-based understanding of science, it is productive to approach scientific knowledge with the same principles that Donald Davidson utilizes.

These principles are: one, all knowledge is objective because it can be expressed externally by utilizing communal schemes; two, all knowledge is subjective because it can be expressed internally using self-ascriptions; and three, all knowledge is intersubjective because it is not only idiosyncratic but it is also objective within that community.

This article will discuss how principles in quantum mechanics fundamentally changed the way scholars, philosophers, and scientists conceptualize their epistemological framework.

Intersubjectivity

Not only is there a necessity for intersubjective interpretation, but such interpretation becomes an integral part of creating a new epistemology for understanding quantum mechanics.

I would like to take a moment to distinguish between philosophical objectivity, scientific objectivity, subjectivity, and intersubjectivity. It is essential to make a distinction between the aforementioned terms, in order to fully investigate the role of interpretation and the affordances it can offer to quantum physics. Scientific objectivity is removed from judgment about a scientific matter. As opposed to philosophical objectivity, which I define as an involved personal judgment about the nature of reality, while still maintaining a distance from subjectivity. One example of scientific objectivity versus philosophical objectivity that is often cited is the simplification of Newton’s law of universal gravitation.

A philosophically objective explanation of this law is that Newton’s equation describes and explains the motion and movement of celestial bodies. A scientifically objective explanation of the universal laws of gravitation explains such celestial motion as a part of the general theory of relativity. The difference here is one simplified law to be able to create a discourse around it; while the other treats the law as a small, yet integral part, of a more deeply complex theory. In the second case, nonmathematical discourse is a secondary or tertiary concern.

I would like to take some time unpacking intersubjectivity because it is an integral part of advocating for a new type of epistemology for understating the quantum nature of matter. What’s more, intersubjectivity transcends the boundaries of subjectivity, philosophical objectivity, and scientific objectivity.

In general, intersubjectivity is a concept rooted in both analytical and continental philosophy. Intersubjectivity is an essential part of discussing the relationship between objects on a metaphysical level. In Donald Davidson’s 2001 book, “Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective”, he views intersubjectivity as a result of communal thinking. He argues that individual and personal thoughts and beliefs are not personal at all, but instead are universal; and as such, our beliefs, thoughts, and experiences, and how we articulate them are a result of communal interactions and discourses.

Intersubjectivity is a vital part of understanding why questions of interpretation are still valid. It is productive to understand intersubjectivity as a series of interactions and agreements surrounding ideas, words, etc. Moreover, such ideas or words have a mutually agreed-upon meaning or definition based on that discourse community. In thinking about quantum physics and classical mechanics, all of the laws and definitions have not only been proven but are all mutually agreed upon and ultimately accepted by the broader scientific community. If we consider scientific knowledge as objective, and we examine all scientific knowledge using intersubjectivity, then we will observe some parallels.

Quantum Entanglement

Photo by Roman Mager on Unsplash

Within quantum entanglement, observing and noting particle spin can be problematic. Generally, quantum entanglement is one observing subatomic particles that are in physical proximity to each other, thus making it necessary to describe the motion of these particles while referencing other particles with which it is interacting.

A flaw within intersubjectivity is that it privileges self-ascription. However, when applied to something like observable phenomena in quantum entanglement, it can be productive. Particle spin is observable and can change based on observer subject position, and while first-person knowledge privileges self-ascription, second-person knowledge, and propositional knowledge do not. In the section above, I stated that quantum physics appears to combine all three types of knowledge, and as such is forced to rationalize such claims to the discourse community.

In thinking about the transmission and articulation of scientific knowledge, it is productive to view any and all scientific knowledge as intersubjective and not just objective. While classical mechanics relied on the objectification of reality, the emergence of the quantum nature of matter shifted this paradigm. Within quantum physics, an object, like a subatomic particle, does not exist in one state, or neatly transition to a different state, like the way water neatly transitions from a liquid state to a solid or gas state. Rebecca Martinez states,

“an object does not act, it reacts. An object cannot set goals or pursue goals. An object can transmit information but neither interpret it nor creates it.

Concept of An Object

An object cannot intend, apprehend, prehend, or comprehend. The concept of an object explicitly and specifically precludes any aspects that could be considered subjective” [9].

Martinez, in her text “Complex Systems”, does however concede that a mathematical object is the only true entity that can be truly and fully objectified. She states,

“mathematical entities are the only true ideal objects because they can be considered to exist outside of reality within some universe of Platonic ideals” [9].

If we conceptualize principles in quantum physics through intersubjectivity, we can produce more productive models of nature. That is to say, many physicists use semantic forms to reproduce a model. Within these semantic forms, there are reference frames, which rely on a set of coordinates and subject positions.

A semantic form is unable to fully and accurately express or account for all essential nonmathematical objects within that system. This is problematic because it is assumed that these semantic forms can account for and explain these entities, archetypical dynamics disallow this [9].

To clarify, it is not the goal of archetypical dynamics to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity, it is however a productive theoretical approach. It is recommended that we approach semantic forms utilizing concepts like intersubjectivity. If we understand intersubjectivity as a communal way to produce and understand knowledge, then we can see the areas where semantic forms overlap, and in those areas of overlap, their phenomena that warrant further explanation.

Framework of Intersubjectivity

Photo by Alex Block on Unsplash

Working within the framework of intersubjectivity, one is forced to reconcile the assurances they have when asserting what they say about an object is not just correct or truthful for them but can be proven truthful to the community. Davidson argues that we are restricted in accounting for the truthful nature of an explanation of phenomena by the number of sources. To combat this in quantum physics, all theories have to be proven mathematically. It is the difference between the type of certainty we have when we say, “I know” versus “I believe”.

Where intersubjectivity diverges from direct application to scientific knowledge is in the treatment of differences. In working within the framework of intersubjectivity, one assumes that they know what they think and mean. If one is transmitting knowledge to others in their discourse communities, and they have different meanings for a word the speaker is using then they abandoned the difference in meaning. In science, rather than abandoning the concept of difference, there is a burden of proof on the speaker proving their term as the correct meaning to the discourse community.

Let us consider observing particle spin; as the subject position will change what is observed in relation to the particle. The articulation of what is observed from two different perspectives could mirror the thought experiment above, wherein articulating the observed phenomena will result in different meanings amalgamating into knowledge acquisition.

Need For Interpretation

The reason for understanding this sort of thought experiment is important, especially to quantum physics, is because there is a need for interpretation. What intersubjectivity does is offers an avenue that might be more productive for understanding paradoxes found in quantum mechanics. The issue with using scientific objectivity, philosophical objectivity, and subjectivity is the tendency to oversimplify theories, like the aforementioned example with Newton’s law of universal gravitation.

Intersubjectivity, however, forces one to acknowledge at least three knowledge; which will result in even inherently unobservable phenomena to be described using fundamental terms. In thinking about the quantum nature of matter, it is essential to consider the affordance of a humanist-based approach, especially one involving intersubjectivity. Furthermore, even though scholars advocate for a subjective interpretation science, I think we ought to consider going beyond subjective to intersubjective simply because it encompasses subjectivity as well as philosophical objectivity.

Continuous discoveries in the field of quantum mechanics give rise to one of three main issues that warrant a humanities-based study. Since I argue for the necessity of a new type of epistemology for understanding quantum mechanics, I think we should first advocate for an intersubjective interpretation, rather than subjective interpretation.

One of the key issues within the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity is that some physicists do not think questions of interpretation are relevant. An underlying concept of interpretation is the fact that it privileges subjectivity, often, over objectivity. One way to combat the unwillingness to use subjective interpretations in quantum mechanics is to create a better framework to conceptualize phenomena by way of a new epistemology.

The idea of creating an entirely new epistemology as a result of the discovery of the quantum world is productive in that it will guide scientists through a slow paradigm shift in physics. Classical mechanics or general relativity is the paradigm for which most current understanding of our universe is built; however, the quantum nature of matter challenges this paradigm and requires a new framework for thinking.

Photo by Jeswin Thomas on Unsplash

Paradox In Quantum Mechanics

First, quantum mechanics intrinsically is paradoxical. For instance, a paradox in quantum mechanics is wave-particle duality. This is a phenomenon where an element behaves like a wave and a particle. Some physicists who dismiss the relevancy of subjective interpretation may do so because the solution to such a paradox may not be mathematically elegant. Moreover, questions as to why this wave-particle duality exists are more challenging to answer from merely an objective standpoint.

It becomes almost counterproductive because such paradoxes seem to lead a physicist to question, perhaps less productive aspects, which may not lead to a substantial or productive explanation. Martinez, in the text Complex Systems: Theory and Applications, states,

“This leads to paradoxes and conceptual confusion which do not make scientists question the applicability of the concept of object; but instead leads them to question reality itself [9].

Moreover, in the article, Remarks on Entanglement and Subjectivity, Cantoni advocates for subjectivity in quantum mechanics then offers and justifies a subjective interpretation.

What’s significant here is the fact that there is an application of subjective interpretation, specifically with regards to observing a particle spin. Also, in the way particle spin is discussed, there is first and second person knowledge being articulated, which offers more of an intersubjective interpretation. Cantoni comments on subjective interpretation in quantum entanglement. He breaks down and essentially argues for the position of subjective interpretation by setting up a mathematically conceptual way of understanding the observer position in relation to a particle.

Observing a particle’s directional spin is a situation where subjective interpretation is needed in conjunction with objective observation. Though, Cantoni does remark that there is the possibility for a subjective interpretation to trivialize the particle spin; there is still a necessity for an observer’s subjective interpretation to describe the correlation between observed event phenomena.

Cantoni states,

“It is maintained that the phenomenon of entanglement, as presented by Bohm, admits, for every observation, a subjective interpretation which is free from the action at a distance or superluminal transmission of information [5].

Cantoni’s text argues for subjective interpretation because the quantum nature of matter requires it; that is, in order to understand information like the directional spin of a particle. Cantoni states,

“We show that, contrary to what is frequently asserted, the Quantum Entanglement admits for each observer a subjective interpretation which does not imply action at a distance or transmission of information of any kind” [5].

A Role For Intersubjective Interpretation

Additionally, in acknowledging a role for intersubjective interpretation in quantum mechanics, one ought to consider a fundamental critique of physics as a whole. That is, the requirement for reality to be objectified. The critique that physics, being the study of components and facets of reality, is roughly viewed and approached as objects is well-founded.

Even though it is essential for physics to objectify reality, due to the nature of quantum mechanics and even the behavior of elements within quantum mechanics, an intersubjective interpretation of an objective physical phenomenon would be productive. Additionally, Martinez views the strict objectification of reality, as it pertains to quantum mechanics, as a conceptual error.

Martinez states,

“objectification only really works when it is applied to a limited range of natural phenomena, like innate matter observed on a microscopic scale, that is isolated from its natural environment” [9].

This is significant because a conceptual error might gesture towards a larger issue with the current epistemological approach.

We can examine the phenomena of paradoxes as an example. Paradoxes are nonmaterial, and as such, can cause confusion for physicists; specifically, those working within quantum field theory. However, this confusion makes the scientist question reality itself rather than the object itself. However, I think at a certain level of observation a fact becomes intersubjective. For example, if we think about a subatomic system, there are points in which they can be viewed as both a wave and a particle.

This “fact” of a subatomic system then becomes a question of ontology and thereby becomes subjective. As stated above, Martinez argues that mathematical objects are the only entities that can be truly objectified because math exists outside of Platonic ideals. In the aforementioned example of a subatomic system being both a wave and a particle, I thought of it as objective first then subjective, However, Nealon and Giroux brought up an interesting point about wherever there is an objective fact, interpretation or subjectivity has been there first.

“If, as we have seen, reading is kin to perception itself, then there is at least some level at which seemingly “objective” facts are beholden to “subjective” interpretations. Wherever we see a fact, an interpretation has been there first” [10].

In general, the implications of questioning the subjective before or instead of the objective is detrimental.

Photo by Ehud Neuhaus on Unsplash

Lack Of Interpretation

A significant factor in quantum mechanics that contributes to a lack of interpretation is that they are stifled in reductionism. In classical mechanics, a reductionist approach is productive, however, in quantum mechanics, it stifles the acquisition of knowledge. In thinking about the approaches to producing knowledge, it is important to perhaps err on the side of Plotnitsky [11].

In the text Epistemology and probability; Plotnitsky calls for a new epistemology to better understand quantum mechanics, and by extension, the quantum nature of matter. In the text, Epistemology and probability Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger and the nature of quantum-theoretical thinking Plotnitsky [11] takes the position that quantum mechanics is forcing scholars to reevaluate the current epistemological approaches.

Currently, there are two dominant camps of theoretical physics. The first is classical general relativity, which focuses on the macro, and is defined and proven by our theories and laws governing physics. The second is quantum mechanics, which focus on the micro. The problem here, the laws, theories, and ways of thinking that given classical mechanics cannot easily explain what happens in quantum mechanics. Due to such difficulty, Plotnitsky proposes an entirely new epistemology first, for understanding not only why such differences persist, but also for beginning to understand more about the quantum nature of matter.

In order to productively do so, one must use intersubjective interpretation in examining matter on a quantum level.

Plotnitsky (2010) states,

“Whatever the future holds in store for physics or philosophy, quantum theory has radically transformed our understanding of the nature of human knowledge, and of the relationships between physics and philosophy, the discipline primarily concerned with human thinking and knowledge”[11].

In the above passage, Plotnitsky highlights a nuance of further developing an understanding of the quantum nature of matter, that is, the nature of human knowledge. It is in this nuance that one ought to consider the processes for acquiring scientific knowledge; and, perhaps, we should rethink our conceptual framework, or manufacture a new epistemology. An example illustrating the productive role subjective interpretation can play in quantum mechanics and thus calling for the creation of a new epistemology is the discrepancy between the behavior of gravity explained by classical mechanics and quantum mechanics.

Gravity is a comparatively weaker force than other forces of nature. On the quantum scale, one is able to progress quantum theory without accounting for gravity, and the physicist still holds up. If one were to remove gravity from the laws governing the universe in classical mechanics or general relativity, then physics would break down. There are ways one can theorize why the quantum world does not require an essential element like gravity, but the refusal by scientists for subjective interpretation halts such development. On one hand, we need to think about what discrepancies like the one listed above mean, but on the other hand, we need to think about how to think about it; for example, creating a new epistemology.

Encouraging subjective interpretation with regards to discussing discrepancies between general relativity/classical mechanics and quantum mechanics requires a new epistemology. The reason encouraging subjective interpretations is important is because such interpretations will aid in establishing new theories in quantum mechanics.

Plotnitsky states,

“it is difficult, if not impossible, to estimate what such theories will reveal philosophically, even though they do pose significant philosophical questions, extending those already posed by relativity and quantum mechanics and some new ones” [11].

There is a precedence here to transform the way we think about the quantum world and also the way we think about and conceptualize knowledge.

Plotnitsky uses Kant’s, Hume’s, and Nietzsche’s way of thinking about philosophical questions raised by quantum mechanics. Notably, the way Kant wrote about the relationship between mathematical formalism and quantifiable Measurement. Kant states,

“the conditions of possibility of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, including, as concerns the questions of possibility there, in particular as concerns the relationship between mathematical formalism and the measurable quantities established by experiments…” [11].

Moreover, in Plotnitsky looking at Bohr’s influence on Heisenberg and being on the opposite end of Schrodinger, notably, the wave-particle complementarity thus a misinterpretation of Bohr’s work.

Photo by Jeswin Thomas on Unsplash

A New Type of Epistemology

This misinterpretation not only calls for a new type of epistemology but also, on a fundamental level a more complex concept of intersubjective interpretation. The reason intersubjective interpretation is important, and by extension creating a new epistemology in theoretical physics, is because it allows for productive discourse and debate which counteracts the narrowing of our theoretical thinking. Moreover, more recent scholars demonstrate the necessity for such interpretation because there are actions frequently seen in quantum entanglement that forces the observer into an intersubjective interpretation.

One key foundational problem within the field of quantum physics is the attempt to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity. These attempts can be addressed by way of encouraging intersubjective interpretations which could also aid in creating a more productive epistemology. Some physicists push for a fundamental theory of nature and believe there should be some method of unifying these particles in order to be described in fundamental terms, and such push requires a reevaluation of an epistemological framework.

The most relevant problem many physicists who work specifically with quantum field theory do not consider questions of interpretation to be relevant. It is important to advocate for subjective interpretation in quantum mechanics.

I view “interpretations” as containing intersubjective conceptualization which gives rise to a new type of epistemology. Scholars and scientists have conceptualized interpretation, subjectivity, objectivity, and epistemology in regards to quantum mechanics, however, intersubjectivity ought to be considered as a unifying entity for subjectivity, philosophical objectivity, and scientific objectivity. To better understand the necessity for subjective interpretation in the field of quantum mechanics, it is important to view subjectivity and objectivity as not in opposition to each other, but rather intertwined. Such a viewpoint could serve as a base for creating a new and more productive epistemology.

References

2. Bailly, F., & Longo, G. (2011). Mathematics and the natural sciences: the physical singularity of life (Vol. 7). World Scientific.

3. Bastin, T., Noyes, H. P., Amson, J., & Kilmister, C. W. (2001). On the physical interpretation and the mathematical structure of the combinatorial hierarchy. In Bit-String Physics: A Finite and Discrete Approach to Natural Philosophy (pp. 64–116).

4. Burwell, J. (2013). Figuring matter: Quantum physics as a new age rhetoric. Science as Culture, 22(3), 344–366.

5. Cantoni, V. (2013). Remarks on Entanglement and Subjectivity. arXiv preprint arXiv:1305.2260.

6. Davidson, D. (2001). Subjective, intersubjective, objective (Vol. 3). Oxford University Press.

7. Heelan, P. A. (2013). Phenomenology, ontology, and quantum physics. Foundations of science, 18(2), 379–385.

8. Mulhall, S. (2005). Routledge philosophy guidebook to Heidegger and being and time. Routledge.

9. Martinez, Rebecca. Complex Systems: Theory and Applications . Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2017. Print.

10. Nealon, J., Nealon, J. T., & Giroux, S. S. (2012). The theory toolbox: Critical concepts for the humanities, arts, and social sciences. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers

11. Plotnitsky, A. (2012). Epistemology and probability. Springer-Verlag New York.

12. Ruetsche, L., Earman, J., Ben-Menahem, Y., & Hemmo, M. (2012). Infinitely Challenging: Pitowsky’s Subjective Interpretation and the Physics of Infinite Systems. In Probability in Physics (pp. 219–232). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21329-8_14

13. Sulis, W. H. (2003). Archetypal dynamics: An approach to the study of emergence. In Formal descriptions of developing systems (pp. 185–228). Springer, Dordrech