Megascopic Quantum Phenomena
303
derivation of einselection circular. In effect, it presupposes the ‘emergent’ structures from the beginning. Thus the problem of basis ambiguity remains unsolved in
Everettian interpretations.”
It’s surprising how many physicists, seeing the difficulties with the wave function collapse and the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, yet jump happily into
the above-mentioned decoherence program, not realizing the circularity of all these
problems. For instance, before we can start to speak about some environmental subsystems, we must first attend to the third of Bohm’s objections—wholeness versus
fragmentation—discussed in Sect. 4. Since quantum mechanics deals with isolated
subsystems, hence we must decipher the puzzle formulated by Sutcliffe and Woolley, i.e. the isolated versus the individual, as considered in Sect. 2. This is crucial to
understanding the origin of ‘emergent’ structures, which if not will be falsely presupposed in the MWI interpretation, as Kastner correctly did notice. Only then can we
begin a reasonable examination about the true meaning of Zurek’s einselection. In
passing one notes that Zurek later came forward with another promising idea, which
he called quantum Darwinism [47] as a part of universal Darwinism. The thesis of
universal Darwinism claims that Darwinian processes are not confined to biology
and can be applied in other scientific branches. The Darwinian algorithm consists of
three parts: (1) random variation in mutations or recombinations; (2) selection of the
fittest variants; (3) heredity of these features in offsprings.
Darwin worried about randomness in the variation, since in his time classical
physics determinism prevailed in philosophy and random processes descending from
indeterministic principles were impermissible. This is not a problem today, when
quantum physics has revealed such a principle. On the other hand, Darwin did not
worry about the selective process, although he was convinced that it must be of a
teleological origin, but in this case he was not in conflict with contemporary science.
Exact sciences such as physics simply were and still are not able to incorporate teleology in an authentic, precise logical and mathematical manner, but at the same time
it cannot be denied. In contrast to indeterminancy, which is opposite to determinancy,
teleology is not opposite to causality (the opposite of “causal” is “acausal”).
In a historical perspective Darwin was a teleologist. Lennox, for instance, shows
in his paper [48] that Darwin uses the term ‘Final Cause’ consistently in his Species
Notebook, the Origin of Species and also afterwards, and that evolution—as conceived by Darwin—is the result of mutations arising by chance and the selection
which is teleological in nature. Here Lennox also quotes from the correspondence
between Darwin and his close friend and colleague Asa Gray: “In an appreciation
of Charles Darwin published in Nature in 1874, Asa Gray noted “Darwin’s great
service to Natural Science” lies in bringing back Teleology “so that, instead of Morphology versus Teleology, we shall have Morphology wedded to Teleology”. Darwin
quickly responded, “What you say about Teleology pleases me especially and I do
not think anyone else has ever noticed the point.”… Francis Darwin and T. H. Huxley
reiterate this sentiment. The latter wrote that “…the most remarkable service to the
philosophy of Biology rendered by Mr. Darwin is the reconciliation of Teleology
and Morphology, and the explanation of the facts of both, which his view offers.””
303
derivation of einselection circular. In effect, it presupposes the ‘emergent’ structures from the beginning. Thus the problem of basis ambiguity remains unsolved in
Everettian interpretations.”
It’s surprising how many physicists, seeing the difficulties with the wave function collapse and the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, yet jump happily into
the above-mentioned decoherence program, not realizing the circularity of all these
problems. For instance, before we can start to speak about some environmental subsystems, we must first attend to the third of Bohm’s objections—wholeness versus
fragmentation—discussed in Sect. 4. Since quantum mechanics deals with isolated
subsystems, hence we must decipher the puzzle formulated by Sutcliffe and Woolley, i.e. the isolated versus the individual, as considered in Sect. 2. This is crucial to
understanding the origin of ‘emergent’ structures, which if not will be falsely presupposed in the MWI interpretation, as Kastner correctly did notice. Only then can we
begin a reasonable examination about the true meaning of Zurek’s einselection. In
passing one notes that Zurek later came forward with another promising idea, which
he called quantum Darwinism [47] as a part of universal Darwinism. The thesis of
universal Darwinism claims that Darwinian processes are not confined to biology
and can be applied in other scientific branches. The Darwinian algorithm consists of
three parts: (1) random variation in mutations or recombinations; (2) selection of the
fittest variants; (3) heredity of these features in offsprings.
Darwin worried about randomness in the variation, since in his time classical
physics determinism prevailed in philosophy and random processes descending from
indeterministic principles were impermissible. This is not a problem today, when
quantum physics has revealed such a principle. On the other hand, Darwin did not
worry about the selective process, although he was convinced that it must be of a
teleological origin, but in this case he was not in conflict with contemporary science.
Exact sciences such as physics simply were and still are not able to incorporate teleology in an authentic, precise logical and mathematical manner, but at the same time
it cannot be denied. In contrast to indeterminancy, which is opposite to determinancy,
teleology is not opposite to causality (the opposite of “causal” is “acausal”).
In a historical perspective Darwin was a teleologist. Lennox, for instance, shows
in his paper [48] that Darwin uses the term ‘Final Cause’ consistently in his Species
Notebook, the Origin of Species and also afterwards, and that evolution—as conceived by Darwin—is the result of mutations arising by chance and the selection
which is teleological in nature. Here Lennox also quotes from the correspondence
between Darwin and his close friend and colleague Asa Gray: “In an appreciation
of Charles Darwin published in Nature in 1874, Asa Gray noted “Darwin’s great
service to Natural Science” lies in bringing back Teleology “so that, instead of Morphology versus Teleology, we shall have Morphology wedded to Teleology”. Darwin
quickly responded, “What you say about Teleology pleases me especially and I do
not think anyone else has ever noticed the point.”… Francis Darwin and T. H. Huxley
reiterate this sentiment. The latter wrote that “…the most remarkable service to the
philosophy of Biology rendered by Mr. Darwin is the reconciliation of Teleology
and Morphology, and the explanation of the facts of both, which his view offers.””