Objectivity vs. subjectivity: can objectivity create order or a different future? About my sources...

I decided that it is necessary to introduce my sources. What I write here is purely my pondering of the objective reality, but it does not come merely from sucking my thumb. It does indeed has a source, even two. The first one is the observation of the reality around me. The second source in general is the Quantum Physics. More specifically it is the Quantum Future Physics as proposed by two quantum physicists: Ph. Blanchard and A. Jadczyk. Out of these two scientists Arkadiusz Jadczyk (Ph.D.) has his own website where his theories are presented.

In case you wonder where I got the idea that the act of observing and the state of observer defines the reality of observer, here is a quote from Mr.Jadczyk. He write on his website:

"We were taught by Bohr and Heisenberg that any observation will disturb a quantum state. Well, unless the state is already known to us, then we can try to be clever and not disturb it."

Me: As you see, the fact of observation disturbs the quantum state and since our macroscopic observable reality (referred to by Mr.Jadczyk as classical) stems or is created from the quantum reality, we may make a hypothesis that the act of observation defines the reality around. It is of course very complex and little understood phenomenon, nontheless it could be real. Mr. Jadczyk continues with comments to his own words where he introduces the question of objectivity and subjectivity:

"Comment:
~At this place we have in mind a rather provocative paper by Y. Aharonov and L. Vaidman. This paper was later criticized by Unruh and others. The question was: is the quantum state an "objective" or "subjective" thing. Can we know it without disturbing it? This question is still open. But a way to answer this question is sketched in [jad94a]."

Me: Mr. Jadczyk seems to ask if the quantum state or the quantum state of an object (since I am of an opinion that state does not exist without an object it describes or refers to) is in itself an objective or subjective occurrence and if we can define or perceive this quantum state without disturbing it by observation. Well, it seems to me that he tries to say that the quantum state is in itself undetermined and it is the act of observing that disturbs or in other words defines the quantum state. Therefore, there is no way, in my opinion, to determine the quantum state without the act of observing, which in turn disturbs/defines it. There must exist a relation between the quantum state and the act of observing. It is exactly this relation I am trying to explore here. Based on this I think that there is no reality without its observer. Reality without the observer is undetermined though the indetermination is also a state in itself and maybe even the objective state of reality. Mr. Jadczyk continues:

"But how can we know the state? We need a theory, that will help us to answer these questions. We are proposing such a theory. We have extended the standard formalism. We do it in a minimal way: just enough to accommodate classical events. We add explicitly a classical part to the quantum part, and we couple classical to the quantum."

As you see, Mr.Jadczyk defines the objective reality as consisting of classical and quantum parts. He links them, or couples them to create the macroscopic reality with its events we can perceive with our own eyes.

In case you would like to read more about the Quantum Future Theory of the two aforementioned physicists you can find a nice summary here:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/quant-ph/9812081

It is very technical, but still understandable. Just to give you the taste of it I will quote a paragraph:

"As we stressed elsewhere

J.S.Bell deplored the misleading use of the term "measurement" in quantum theory. He opted for banning this word from our quantum vocabulary, together with other vague terms such as "macrosccopic", "microscopic", "observable" and several others. He suggested that we ought to replace the term "measurement" with that of experiment", and also not to even speak of "observables" (the things that seem to call for an "observer") but to introduce instead the concept of "beables" - the things that objectively "happen-to-be (or not-to-be)"."

Stay tuned for the next part...

Oli