QUANTUM METAPHYSICS - E-thesis

eference allows humans located within nature to have a real ability to choose, even though this
is not sufficient as an explanation concerning the exact nature of ”true choices”. In Bohr’s
complementarity frame of reference, the oppositional stance of natural science and the
humanities disappears of its own accord. When humans are viewed as an active and responsible
part of, or partner in, nature, rather than as the external operator of a machine, their knowledge,
values and intentions are no longer only their own internal affair, they are of vital importance to
the development of the whole system. As will be presented in more detail in Section 5.3. of this
thesis, conscious humans in the quantum frame of reference do not need to remain external
observers, they can be principally seen as active formers of reality who actualise some of the
potential possibilities offered by nature on the basis of their own understanding and will.
In his complementarity, Bohr replaced the passive observer of classical physics with an active
participant who is deeply interconnected with reality. Quantum theory allows some freedom and
responsibility for humans because the past does not determine a unique future. Instead of
dividing mind from matter, mind or consciousness can be understood as part of the world in
which it works and about which it creates descriptions. Allocating humans a place in reality
offers the possibility of constructing a causal theory of action which could not succeed in a world
presumed to consist of deterministic matter. As usually understood, Determinism implies that at
any time the future is already fixed and unique, with no possibility of alternative development. If
humans wished to be seen as part of nature in this frame of reference, their behaviour also had to
be determined by external events beyond their control.
In what follows, an attempt is made to use the material already presented to outline a dynamic
ontological-epistemological frame of reference in which the paradoxes of quantum mechanics
can become understandable. While the starting points are taken as Niels Bohr’s concepts of the
impossibility of absolute objective description and our presence in the reality we are
investigating, the interpretation is developed further. Bohr avoided the adoption of an ontological
attitude, but in what follows, the inaccessibility of final truth is not viewed as a hindrance in
attempting to construct a new and more-functional ontological framework for perceiving reality.
When epistemological elements are considered in addition to ontological assumptions,
knowledge concerning the limitations of our portrayal can also be addressed as a factor which
urges development forward. While the question of the correctness of a world-view cannot be
finally resolved, our portrayal can become more comprehensive in the way that it is better able to
take account of the different development possibilities within different inter-dependent systems
298