Quantum theory and human perception of the macro-world

Abstract

We investigate the question of ‘why customary macroscopic entities appear to us humans as they do, i.e., as bounded entities occupying space and persisting through time’, starting from our knowledge of quantum theory, how it affects the behavior of such customary macroscopic entities, and how it influences our perception of them. For this purpose, we approach the question from three perspectives. Firstly, we look at the situation from the standard quantum angle, more specifically the de Broglie wavelength analysis of the behavior of macroscopic entities, indicate how a problem with spin and identity arises, and illustrate how both play a fundamental role in well-established experimental quantum-macroscopical phenomena, such as Bose-Einstein condensates. Secondly, we analyze how the question is influenced by our result in axiomatic quantum theory, which proves that standard quantum theory is structurally incapable of describing separated entities. Thirdly, we put forward our new ‘conceptual quantum interpretation’, including a highly detailed reformulation of the question to confront the new insights and views that arise with the foregoing analysis. At the end of the final section, a nuanced answer is given that can be summarized as follows. The specific and very classical perception of human seeing—light as a geometric theory—and human touching—only ruled by Pauli's exclusion principle—plays a role in our perception of macroscopic entities as ontologically stable entities in space. To ascertain quantum behavior in such macroscopic entities, we will need measuring apparatuses capable of its detection. Future experimental research will have to show if sharp quantum effects—as they occur in smaller entities—appear to be ontological aspects of customary macroscopic entities. It remains a possibility that standard quantum theory is an incomplete theory, and hence incapable of coping ultimately with separated entities, meaning that a more general theory will be needed.

Relativity Theory Refounded

“…We have indeed focused ourselves on the identification of a reality based on the intrinsic (proper) elements which can be identified in relativity theory. This is methodologically equivalent to how we have contributed in the past to the elaboration of an operational-realistic approach to quantum theory (Aerts 1982, 1983) and our more recent contextuality interpretation and explanation of quantum theory proceeds also along this method rationale (Aerts 2009, 2010a, b, 2013, 2014). Also, the new foundation of relativity theory we have presented here can be considered as being part of our general endaveour of building realistic interpretations, and since we use explicitly the analogy of the World-Wide Web one might think of the non temporal and non spatial deep reality to be conceptual in nature.…”

“…How better to provide such proof than by giving a simple example that enables us to directly see and understand what could be the relevance of such hypothesis for our physical reality? The example is inspired by our ‘conceptuality interpretation of quantum mechanics’ (Aerts 2009, 2010a, b, 2013, 2014), although this does not mean a priori that it is also an argument in favor of this interpretation. Here, we only want to show how the view on relativity theory—and hence also on quantum mechanics with non spatiality and non temporality—that we put forward can be true, and what are some of its immediate consequences.…”

“…that we can understand its meaning within our view on relativity theory. We will also make explicit use of knowledge about the nature of reality derived from quantum theory in general and also from our conceptual interpretation of it (Aerts 2009, 2010a, b, 2013, 2014). As we shall see, it is in a conversation with relativity theory as it is usually perceived, taking into account insights from quantum theory and also being open to intuitions beyond, which allows us to put forward a new view of the physical reality described by relativity theory, giving rise to a possible understanding of the deep conceptual problems of interpreting the nature of this physical reality.…”

A survey of quantum-like approaches to decision making and cognition

“…Concept combination and Knowledge presentation: research about how different concepts combine, emerge and even interfere with each other is another interesting area of application for quantum theoretic formulation. Aerts et al, in a series of papers formulated a quantum-like modeling framework for concept presentation and combination and demonstrated that the inherent quantum structures such as quantum contextuality, quantum interference and quantum entanglement can appear in this domain (Aerts, 2009(Aerts, , 2014(Aerts, , 2007Aerts et al, 2000Aerts et al, , 2005Aerts et al, , 2013cAerts et al, , 2011dSozzo, 2012b,c, 2011). The complex mathematics of quantum theory, the appearance of quantum entanglement and the key role of Fock spaces in explaining the contextual emergence of concepts are some of the unique benefits of quantum-like formulation compared to other classical models.…”

Quantum Probabilistic Models Revisited: The Case of Disjunction Effects in Cognition

“…Given that classical probability theory is very rigid in the sense that it poses many constraints and assumptions (single trajectory principle, obeys set theory, etc. ), it becomes too limited (or even impossible) to provide simple models that can capture human judgments and decisions since people are constantly violating the laws of logic and probability theory [12][13][14].…”