Quanta

Heated debates about the nature of recent findings in quantum physics are spreading like wildfire across the scientific community. The dual, wave/particle nature of matter already caused many controversies and miscomprehensions that left many scientists at a loss. In such a climate, a variety of shallow (meant to be profound) mysticisms flourished and quite a few scientists slipped into them. The confirmation of Bell's theorem by Nicolus Gisin and his team at the University of Geneva in 1997 caused even more of a stir. The implications of it are still being slowly and painfully digested by the scientific community.

In simple terms, it has been proven that "when particles originate under certain conditions a measurement of one particle will correlate instantaneously (in no time) with the state of another regardless of the distance between them, even though no signal can travel faster than light". Physicists were forced to conclude, "Physical reality is non-local". In other words, the space and (I would add) the time, do not exist for the basic building blocks of our universe and ourselves within it. (At least not as we experience it.)

The basic building blocks of "our description of the world and ourselves within it" are based on the time and the space as we experience it". Consequently, even simple processes of our mind, like comparison or counting, might be entirely inadequate at the level of basic building blocks of our universe and ourselves within it.

The troubling question is then, how to reconcile the "non-locality of the physical reality" with the obvious "locality" of "our description of the world and ourselves within it"? One of the possible answers might be that the space and the time are emergent properties (complexity theory). The other might emerge if my imagination gains a bit more substance.

Implications are mind shattering. All our concepts, including cause & effect and mathematical principles disappear at the level of our building blocks. Strictly speaking, even the proof that confirmed Bell's theorem loses its foundations... But - is it "really" so.

The major stumbling block is refusal to closely examine our concepts of "objectivity" and "reality" that are too often taken as primary phenomena. However, the ambiguity of these concepts cannot be ignored any more. This will probably lead towards their replacement (as I'm attempting in these pages) or a redefinition and a change in focus. The following steps will lead towards radical changes in our methodologies to formally include an active observer (you, me and others) with all our strengths and weaknesses. (I even hope for a reduction in passive voice and impersonal expressions.) The concept of cause & effect should be also scrutinised as well as foundations of formal logic (especially the concept of "truth"). This will of course, impact math, science in general and ultimately our entire (Western) culture.

The task is tremendous and many past efforts may turn into dust but (I hope) it will bring the structure of the scientific knowledge closer to other human activities that never abandoned "subjectivity" entirely. Life and science might turn out to be the same, after a long and superficial separation.