Exploring Non-locality in Psychology

Abstract

In this article, we explore non-locality in the context of General Psychology. First, we introduce some key historical debates concerning the epistemological and ontological character of non-locality. These debates lead us into a discussion about the issue of measurement in science and its relation to subject and object. This discussion is exemplified through Zeh’s concept of decoherence and Goethe’s theory of light (his Farbenlehre). The overall goal is thus to qualify how a distinction between locality/non-locality can be viewed as a philosophy of science theme which is relevant to General Psychology. Finally, this distinction is illustrated with Mammen’s concept of choice categories and Engelsted’s concepts of interface and interspace, which, ultimately, call attention to an ontological absence that characterizes non-locality. We suggest this ontological absence be further investigated from a semiotic point of view in future research concerning the general psychological nature of non-local phenomena.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example in his 1949 response to Einstein (Bohr, 1998).

  2. 2.

    Since the quantum description violates the locality criterion and therefore we cannot be sure that it informs us of any physical feature.

  3. 3.

    Actually, considering the other half of the famous quote makes this perfectly clear: “I, at any rate, am convinced that God does not throw a dice, nor does God employ methods of telepathy” (Einstein in a letter to Max Born 1924, published by Irene Born 1971).

  4. 4.

    It is important that the reader be aware that in this section we are not so much concerned with quantum physics as we are concerned with the range of epistemic potentials offered by the legitimacy of operating with non-locality in scientific theories.

  5. 5.

    Reason will confabulate its experiences if it does not truly presuppose the suppositions of its observations, as Hegel philosophized over 200 years ago (Hegel, 2005, p. 168–205).

  6. 6.

    By the term “re-framing” we do not suggest that decoherence can explain superposition or entanglement, that is, we do not suggest that decoherence offers an alternative theory to interpretations of the measurement problem. Rather, the concept of decoherence offers a different perspective than that of the measurement problem by focussing on the boundary between quantum and non-quantum effects, instead of portraying the quantum effects as a reality which is somehow disturbed by our peeking.

  7. 7.

    This is a critique which has been furthered by the father of modern phenomenology Edmund Husserl (1859–1938). Husserl claimed that the dualism between world and perception leads to a naturalistic attitude, whereby phenomena are treated as obvious and objective happenings in the world, which then secondarily strikes perception, like an impulse appearing on a radar-screen (see Moran, 2008 for a walkthrough of Husserl's critique of naturalism).

  8. 8.

    Giving primacy to the subjective experience blocks the road to scientifically analysing how something emerges—thus, in Goethe’s theory, the emergence of the subjective perception that results from the light-dark boundaries, intensities, and hues that gives way to colour, remains philosophical and is somewhat mysteriously contained in what he terms Polarität (polarity), a phenomenological set of principles that help us form an immediate and direct perception of the world (such as yellow-blue, light-dark, repulsion-attraction, and God-world).

References

  1. Bhaskar, R. (2008). A realist theory of science. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Paradox. Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics: collected papers on quantum philosophy. pp.14–21.

  3. Boëtius, H. (2015). I Sansningens Enhed: En bog om Goethes farvelære. Kbh: Multivers.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bohr, N. (1949). Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics. København: University of Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bohr, N. (1964). Atomfysik og menneskelig erkendelse. Kbh: Schultz.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bohr, N. (1998). Causality and complementarity: supplementary papers edited by Jan Faye and Henry J. Folse. The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, Volume IV. Connecticut: Ox Bow Press.

  7. Lehner, C., Renn, J, & Katzir, S. (2013). Traditions and transformations in the history of quantum physics. Edition Open Access.

  8. Deacon, T. W., & Cashman, T. (2016). Steps to a metaphysics of incompleteness. Theology and Science, 14(4), 401–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Deacon, T. W. (2010). What is missing from theories of information? (pp. 146–169). Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics. N.p.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Zeh, D. H. (1970). On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory. Foundations of Physics, 1, 69–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review., 47(10), 777–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Engelsted, N. (1989). Personlighedens almene grundlag I & II. Århus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Engelsted, N. (2017). Catching up with Aristotle. Berlin: SpringerBriefs.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Feynman, R. P. (1963). The Feynman lectures on physics. Bd. 3.New-York: Addison-Wesley, Frank. Publishers.

  15. Hegel, G. W. F. (2005). Åndens fænomenologi. København: Gyldendal.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hemmo, M., & Shenker, O. (2001). Can we explain thermodynamics by quantum decoherence? (The conceptual foundations of statistical physics). Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 32, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Huggler, J, & Huggler, L. (2002). Substansen er subjekt. Nr. 36. Århus: Slagmark, (36).

  18. Køppe, S. (1993). Virkelighedens niveauer: De nye videnskaber og deres historie. Kbh: Gyldendal.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Køppe, S. (2012). A moderate eclecticism: ontological an epistemological issue. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science., 46(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mammen, J. (1983). Den menneskelige sans. Et essay om psykologiens genstandsområde. 2. Udgave. København: Dansk psykologisk Forlag.

  21. Mammen, J. (2009): Til forsvar for den sunde fornuft. Kan psykologien blive en videnskab uden at fjerne sig fra virkeligheden? Tiltrædelsesforelæsning som adjungeret professor ved Ålborg Universitet 24. April 2009. Psyke & Logos, 30, s. 759–777.

  22. Mammen, J. (2017). A new logical foundation for psychology. Berlin: SpringerBriefs.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Masi, M. (2020). Quantum physics. an overview of a weird world. Amazon: Independently Published.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Maudlin, T. (2011). Quantum non-locality and relativity metaphysical intimations of modern physics (3rd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Maudlin, T. (2015). Philosophy of physics: space and time. N.p.

  26. Maudlin, T. (2019). Philosophy of physics: quantum theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Moran, D. (2008). Husserl’s transcendental philosophy and the critique of naturalism. Continental philosophy review, 41(4), 401–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Valsiner, J. (2000). Culture and human development. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Schlosshauer, M. A. (2008) Decoherence and the quantum-to-classical transition. 3rd corrected printing. Berlin; Springer.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denis Kiyak Ebbesen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Studies

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ebbesen, D.K., Olsen, J. Exploring Non-locality in Psychology. Hu Arenas (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-021-00189-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Non-locality
  • General psychology
  • Quantum Theory
  • Philosophy of Science
  • Metaphysics