QUANTUM METAPHYSICS - E-thesis

increasingly familiarity with the material revealed a multiplicity of starting points and interests:
discussions, bewilderment, and argument. It was typical to speak of momentous and profound
change: the need for it, a yearning for it, or its outright rejection. The discussion was fragmented
between many positions: a proponent of a traditional approach concerning a certain
presupposition could, in a different location, propose a radically new formulation. In some
pieces, shaking the foundations of classical physics inspired fantastical arguments about parallel
universes or ”active” information that guided particles. In others, a variety of magical
explanations surfaced to explain observed phenomena, explanations that appeared impossible
within the context of classical physics. In fact, problems varied from one writer to the next in
such a manner that it was by no means easy to frame either common questions or even common
areas for which solutions were being sought.
The philosophy of science addressed the discussion concerning models and reality at a more
abstract level. One end of the spectrum was represented by relativistic philosophy, according to
which ”any model is acceptable if it explains the facts”. This attitude was even more
unacceptable to me than the preceding ’naïve realism’, on the basis of which some physicists
postulated a variety of auxiliary hypotheses to allow them to hold on to the classical conception
of reality. On the other hand, I also valued the down-to-earth approach adopted by physicists and
viewed Relativism as having done good work in awakening us to our own freedom in creating
models and beliefs. At this point, however, I should reaffirm that even though we can freely
postulate a variety of models, we cannot close our eyes to their consequences. In our quest by
trial and error, reality dictates the boundaries.
As my studies progressed, the Copenhagen interpretation, in particular the thoughts of Niels
Bohr, became my most important source of inspiration. 2 I became certain that the basic
presuppositions of classical physics concerning both the external position of human beings and
the objective nature of physical description required radical revision. It is no longer possible to
separate the truth-seeking, knowing and sentient human being from the wholeness of nature
without at the same time surrendering the basic objective of natural science, i.e. a deeper
understanding of reality. The fact that these ontological and epistemological reflections resulted
in a plunge into antiquity, and that the supposedly-dead ideas of Plato and Aristotle appeared to
2 I did my Master's Thesis in physics on the EPR paradox and in philosophy on the different interpretations of
quantum mechanics, see Kallio-Tamminen 1990. The thesis through which I earned my Licentiate degree (a degree
conferred by Finnish universities that stands between a Master's and a Doctor's degree) concerned Niels Bohr and
his reconsiderations of conceptions of physical reality, see Kallio-Tamminen 1994.
8