Uncertain for A Century: Quantum Mechanics and The Dilemma of\n Interpretation

Quantum mechanics is extraordinarily successful at predicting experimental outcomes and underpins modern digital technology, yet after more than a century no consensus exists on what it implies about the nature of reality. Most interpretations of its mathematical formalism cannot be distinguished experimentally. This essay examines how the persistent lack of an agreed interpretation influences philosophical debates about the meaning of the term 'Universe' and the nature of consciousness. The author does not advocate for any particular interpretation but explores how modern physics' inability to experimentally adjudicate between interpretations with wildly divergent ontological and epistemological implications shapes discussions of physics and its description of the world.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Quantum Mechanics, the physical theory describing the microworld, represents\none of science's greatest triumphs. It lies at the root of all modern digital\ntechnologies and offers unparalleled correspondence between prediction and\nexperiments. Remarkably, however, after more than 100 years it is still unclear\nwhat quantum mechanics means in terms of basic philosophical questions about\nthe nature of reality. While there are many interpretations of the mathematical\nmachinery of quantum physics, there remains no experimental means to\ndistinguish between most of them.\n In this contribution, (based on a discussion at the NYAS), I wish to consider\nthe ways in which the enduring lack of an agreed upon interpretation of quantum\nphysics influences a number of critical philosophical debates about physics and\nreality. I briefly review two problems effected by quantum interpretations: the\nmeaning of the term 'Universe' and the nature of consciousness. In what follows\nI am explicitly not advocating for any particular quantum interpretation.\nInstead, I am interested in how the explicit inability of modern physics to\nexperimentally distinguish between interpretations with wildly divergent\nontological/epistemological implications plays into discussions of physics and\nits description of the world.\n