the superposition of states could also be just a computational artifice, allowing us to handle intrinsically subtler and more paradoxical realities while remaining within the framework of our classical understanding of the world.

The previous considerations also apply to the concept of non-locality, which involves the negation of the classical concept of locality. While this may be wishful thinking, it is conceivable that a more precise and positive definition of non-lo-cality may emerge. Such an evolution could offer a new way of conceiving the relationships between quantum entities, which would then be neither constrained by distance nor limited by the classical notions of interaction.

Finally, the use of the concept of intrinsic probability, which is at the heart of quantum mechanics, could also be nothing more than a provisional theoreti-cal compromise. This probabilistic approach remains a valuable tool, awaiting a more developed theory, which has yet to be defined without, of course, returning to the considerations of Einstein, Bell, and their hidden variables. However, this concept probably also hides our inability to fully describe quantum reality in a completely satisfactory way.

Conclusion

Neuroscience and cognitive sciences reveal a fundamental fact: human beings have a deep and instinctive need to structure and shape their perceptions and experiences. Through a kind of “generalized Gestalt effect”, they seek not only to describe and understand them but also to organize and unify them into a coher-ent whole as much as possible.

However, as complex beings, humans have developed, alongside their cognitive faculties that allow them to analyze and order the world, a psychological dimen-sion of a different nature. For reasons that are still only partially understood, but which could be related to an accelerated processing of an excess of information79, their “logical” and “rational” judgments are frequently short-circuited by uncon-scious mental processes: cognitive biases.

Science, and more generally the collective knowledge produced in our societies, attempts to free human beings from these cognitive biases. However, it is essen-tial to keep in mind that the conceptual tools that underpin this knowledge were shaped by the collective history of humans and their respective cultures. It is also crucial to realize that the nature/culture dichotomy is largely artificial. Indeed, culture is, to a large extent, a way to overcome or even transcend nature; but it is also, in many respects, its emanation: most institutions, structures, norms, values, and social taboos are (only) ways of controlling, channeling, and ultimately giving a “civilized” form to human beings’ primary instincts. This project, however, is far from being completed.

Thus, it is often said that society is violent, patriarchal, unequal, that it fosters rela-tionships of domination, coercion, and even oppression. Indeed, it is, for reasons that are intrinsic to it, particularly due to the norms and prohibitions it imposes, generating frustration, dissatisfaction, and resentment. However, these flaws also and especially find their origin in the very nature of human beings, in what one could call their animal condition, within which their behavior is primarily driven by the need to satisfy their basic instincts: hunger, security, reproduction, domi-nation, etc. As a result, our analytical tools, no matter how sophisticated they are, are imbued with our primary, instinctive, and sensory connection to the world around us.