Quantum Mechanics and the Question of Knowledge

We have explored aspects of quantum mechanics that may prompt reflection on the nature of the relationship between this theory and the knowledge it pro-vides us of the world. It seems, however, to question deeply rooted notions in the human mind: determinism, the idea that probabilities are merely a reflection of our ignorance, the independence of spatially separated systems (locality), as well as the persistent belief that reality exists independently of the means used to study it and, moreover, of the observer. All these elements shake the concepts of objectivity and the very nature of reality.

As we have said, it is more than evident that future scientific and technical advances will provide a new perspective on these issues, which, moving from conceptual to philosophical, could largely be integrated into the principles or properties of an emerging theory, or one that still needs to be fully discovered in extenso. We have too often heard about the “end of physics”, the “end of science”, or the “end of history” to believe that we have reached some sort of final resolution.

However, it is possible to engage in a thought exercise, fully aware of its lim-itations: considering the possibility, just as interesting, of a boundary in scien-tific investigation, in light of what quantum mechanics reveals to us—or more precisely, in light of our understanding of what it reveals to us. Rather than approaching this question head-on, we propose to examine it by taking a detour through cognitive sciences and neuroscience. Indeed, it seems illusory to think that the construction of representations and our understanding of the world can free themselves from the specific mechanisms at work within the human mind. However, these disciplines teach us an essential fact: human beings have a subjec-tive view of the world around them. This subjectivity manifests at several levels: at the species level, through physiological biases; at the individual level, through perception biases or cognitive biases specific to each person—or group of people; and finally, at the collective level, through cultural biases characteristic of par-ticular social groups or even society as a whole.

Physiological biases. As humans, like any other species, we access the world and the events around us through our senses, meaning through specific physico-chemical sensory receptors. Physical stimuli from the outside world induce biochemical changes in the relevant receptors, giving rise to chemical signals. These signals are then converted into electrical impulses, which are transmitted, via neurons, to the brain, where they form a coherent mental representation of the perceived event.

However, our five senses, no matter how sophisticated, remain imperfect. They are limited to narrow sensory spectra, that is, to specific ranges of visual and auditory frequencies, tastes, smells, and sensations that define what we are able to perceive. Thus, our vision is only sensitive to a tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, roughly a few hundred nanometers, situated between ultraviolet and infrared. Similarly, our hearing is limited to sound frequencies approximately between 20 and 20,000 Hz. As for our other senses—taste, smell, and touch—they too only function within restricted ranges.

Although we are not the least well-equipped among animal species, some of them far surpass our sensory capabilities in specific areas. For example, cats and other felines possess exceptional night vision, allowing them to perceive much lower light levels than we can. Likewise, birds of prey such as hawks and eagles, whose visual acuity is 4 to 8 times greater than ours, are able to spot small prey from several kilometers away.

As for hearing, cats and dogs are particularly sensitive to high frequencies (above 20,000 Hz), enabling them to detect the movements of their prey. Bats and