Journal of Modern Physics, 2021, 12, 959-970

https://www.scirp.org/journal/jmp
ISSN Online: 2153-120X
ISSN Print: 2153-1196

A “Potency-Act” Interpretation
of Quantum Physics

Alberto Strumia

Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica Francesco Severi, Rome, Italy

How to cite this paper: Strumia, A. (2021) Abstract

A “Potency-Act” Interpretation of Quan-
tum Physics. Journal of Modern Physics, 12, Some considerations are presented on the so called “ontological interpreta-
959-970. tions” of quantum physics, starting from a remark by Werner Heisenberg on
https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2021.127058
the relation between the probabilistic character of quantum states and the
Received: April 21, 2021
Aristotelian notion of “potency”. We show how an interesting revival of the
Accepted: May 21, 2021 original idea by Heisenberg can be found in the recent scientific and episte-
Published: May 24, 2021 mological literature, in order to solve some paradoxical aspects emerging
within some of the usual interpretations of quantum physics. Moreover a way
Copyright © 2021 by author(s) and
Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
seems to be open in order to rediscover the role of Aristotelian-Thomistic no-
This work is licensed under the Creative tion of “analogy” of “causal agents” operating even in the physical world. The
Commons Attribution International “Potency-Act” interpretation of quantum physics appears aside the role of the
License (CC BY 4.0).
Aristotelian notion of “Form” when it is compared with the recent notion of
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
“information” in the context of the physics of “complex systems” and the bi-
Open Access
ology of “living systems”.

Keywords
Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory, Ontological Interpretation,
Potency-Act

1. Introduction
In the present paper we propose some informal comments on the “ontological”
interpretations of quantum physics starting from Heisenberg’s suggestion of
comparing qualitatively some quantum results with the Aristotelian-Thomistic
“Potency-Act” theory.
After presenting a sketch of the most referenced “ontological” interpretations
of quantum mechanics, and more generally of quantum physics (here both refe-
renced shortly as QM), in Section 2, we propose to reconsider, as especially “up
to date”, Heisenberg’s suggestion of retaining QM as a sort of contemporary re-

DOI: 10.4236/jmp.2021.127058 May 24, 2021 959 Journal of Modern Physics

A. Strumia

discovery of Aristotelian “Potency-Act” theory, within the modern context of a

mathematical formulation of scientific theories.
In Section 3 we consider and comment an essential quotation from Heisen-
berg concerning his own idea of establishing a comparison between QM states
ψ and their ontological interpretation in terms of Aristotelian “Potency-Act”
doctrine.
Section 4 is devoted to some recent contributions by authors following the
“Potency-Act” interpretation of QM in the light of the further developments of
quantum physics.
In Section 5 we compare the “probabilistic” interpretation of the wave func-
tion ψ with the Aristotelian-Thomistic theory of causality, which includes, be-
side “deterministic” causality, also “probabilistic” causes and even “free” ones,
like e.g., human free will. The last matter, which here is not treated, involves also
cognitive sciences and anthropology.
Section 6 deals with the example of a simple physical system like a “beam
splitter” interferometer in which a single particle (e.g., a photon or an electron)
is observed to behave like a coherent wave train, according to QM prediction.
Section 7 applies “Potency-Act” ontological interpretation of QM to vacuum
polarization and vacuum fluctuations.
Some concluding remarks are presented in Section 8.

2. Conventional Interpretations of QM
In his well known book The Road to Reality. A Complete Guide to the Laws of
the Universe [1] at p. 786, Roger Penrose lists six known “ontological” interpre-
tations of QM, i.e.:
1) “Copenhagen”,
2) Many worlds,
3) Environmental decoherence,
4) Consistent histories,
5) Pilot wave,
6) New theory with objective R.
Moreover, in the last years, a new approach to QM has been opened by quan-
tum information leading to a formalism, even if not to a proper new interpreta-
tion, in terms of qubits (see e.g. [2] [3]).
First we will shortly summarize all of them and later we will go back to an
original suggestion by Werner Heisenberg.
1) The “Copenhagen” interpretation
The so called “Copenhagen” interpretation, (for a review see, e.g. [4]) initially
proposed by Niels Bohr, offers a non-realistic viewpoint according to which QM
does not provide a genuine and predictive description of what really is happen-
ing within the world, but it allows to make computations about the measure-
ments an observer is able to do thanks to a suitable detecting apparatus. The ir-
reducible wave and particle frames are considered as “complementary”. Wave

DOI: 10.4236/jmp.2021.127058 960 Journal of Modern Physics

A. Strumia

function amplitudes ψ are related to the local probability density of some

particle presence when an observation is done and are responsible of light and
matter interference phenomena. Particles are observed as quanta of momentum
p = k non-exactly localizable as points in space and instant events in time,
because of Heisenberg uncertainty principle, stating the relations between mo-
mentum/ position, and energy/time:
1 1
∆p∆x ≥ , ∆E ∆t ≥ . (1)
2 2
Then the QM theory appears simply as a theoretical instrument for prevision-
al computation of probabilities of observation and not as a true description of
the real world.
2) The “many worlds” or “multiverse” interpretation
The “many worlds” or “multiverse” interpretation (for a review see e.g. [5]) is
intriguing but it appears somehow exotic and non-genuinely scientific because
of its non-falsifiability (according to K.R. Popper’s scientificity criterion, see e.g.
[6], part I, chap 2, section 6). Since it assumes that all the possible states ψ n
involved into the state function of a system:
ψ = ∑ cn ψ n , (2)
n

are all really existent in some world, So an infinite number of “parallel worlds”
are intended to be “actually” existent, each within its “real” universe. All the pa-
rallel universes are non-connected components of a whole, so that only one of
them may be observed by us. The wave function involves a superposition of
many “real” worlds together.
While the “Copenhagen” interpretation is “instrumentalisitc” (in the sense of
Popper [6] and T.S. Kuhn [7]) (or even idealistic or “conventionalistic” in the
sense of P. Feyerabend, see, e.g. [8]), the “many worlds” interpretation is exces-
sively “realistic”. Moreover, the latter interpretation, even if it is fascinating, ma-
nifestly violates the “Occam’s razor” simplicity principle [9]. which is normally
assumed as scientifically basic. Why to suppose the true “actual” existence of in-
finite worlds when only one of them is observable by us?
3) The “Environmental decoherence” interpretation
The “Environmental decoherence” interpretation includes the interaction with
the environment, i.e., what is considered as “external” to the system on which an
observer (human or instrumental) is performing measurements.
So the wave function governing the “whole” is required to include, beside the
wave function ψ S related to the system on which one is performing mea-
surements and the wave function ψ A describing the instrumental apparatus
needed to exploit measurements, also an almost inaccessible wave function for
the “external” environment ψ env , which must be considered no longer as “ex-
ternal”.

ψ = ψ S ⊗ ψ A ⊗ ψ env . (3)

DOI: 10.4236/jmp.2021.127058 961 Journal of Modern Physics

A. Strumia

Interactions of the system with the environment and the apparatus appear
both as the “causal agent” determining the collapse from coherence of the wave
function. Such interaction, which may be even “non-local”, is recognized as the
physical basis of entanglement [10].
The causal contribution of environment to decoherence needs to be added to
the interaction between the measurement apparatus and the system itself. Such
approach is “holistic” in the sense that a quantum system cannot be treated as an
isolated one, being always influenced by the environment.
4) Consistent histories
The “Consistent histories” interpretation [11] considers QM as an intrinsically
probabilistic theory, in which probability does not depend on observational and
measurement operations, but is involved in the wave equation itself as a “true
law of nature”.
Ontologically it appears that “probabilistic causation” is a kind of causality re-
lation in the physical microscopic world, aside “deterministic causation” in the
physical macroscopic world. Introduction of “probability” within the causality is
no longer interpreted as a lack of causation, or as a consequence of our ignor-
ance about the physical world, but as a new way of actuating causation in QM,
aside the “deterministic” causality in classical mechanics.
5) Pilot wave
The “pilot wave” interpretation proposed by Louis De Broglie and later mod-
ified by David Bohm attempts a classical-like approach to quantum mechanics
suggesting that the particle trajectories are driven by a pilot wave, being oscilla-
tions of some matter field ψ just as a photon is a quantum of oscillating elec-
tromagnetic fields E , B . In Bohm’s variant of the theory, a sort of “quantum
potential” is guessed and evaluated, the effect of which is to drive particles along
definite trajectories leading to interference and wave effects. But the last ap-
proach, in its original form, is not compatible with Einstein’s relativity.

“The most thoroughly worked-out theory of this type is the pilot wave
theory developed by de Broglie and presented by him at the Fifth Solvay
Conference held in Brussels in 1927, revived by David Bohm in 1952, and
currently an active area of research by a small group of physicists and phi-
losophers.
According to this theory, there are particles with definite trajectories, that
are guided by the quantum wave function.” [12]

6) New theory with objective R

The “objective reduction” interpretation is looking for an evolutionary conti-
nuous process performed by an evolution operator U, avoiding jumps about the
quantum states of a system.

“Often referred as ‘objective-R’ theory. ‘R’ stands for the quantum state re-
duction when a measurement is taking place. Supporters of this interpreta-
tion believe that today’s quantum mechanics is not here to stay and will be

DOI: 10.4236/jmp.2021.127058 962 Journal of Modern Physics

A. Strumia

replaced by a theory at which R is a real process. Physicists and mathemati-

cians who work in the field, try to balance the inconsistence of R process
(discontinuous process, ‘jump’ from a state to another) with the unitary and
simple (at least in Schrödinger’s equation) time evolution of the state vector
(often denoted as U-process).” [13]

3. Heisenberg’s Interpretation of QM and the

Aristotelian “Potency-Act” Theory
Surprisingly, but not too much, Werner Heisenberg, in his relevant book Physics
and Philosophy, suggested the idea that a meaningful “ontological” interpreta-
tion of quantum theory could be related, in some sense, to the Aristotelian con-
cepts of “potency” (Latin, “potentia”) and therefore “act” (Latin, “actus”), even if
the latter is not explicitly referred-to by him. Here are his own words.

“A first and very interesting step toward a real understanding of quantum

theory was taken by Bohr, Kramers and Slater in 1924. These authors tried
to solve the apparent contradiction between the wave picture and the par-
ticle picture by the concept of the probability wave. […]
The probability wave of Bohr, Kramers, Slater, however, meant more than
that; it meant a tendency for something. It was a quantitative version of the
old concept of ‘potentia’ in Aristotelian philosophy. It introduced some-
thing standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual
event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibil-
ity and reality. Later when the mathematical framework of quantum theory
was fixed, Born took up this idea of the probability wave and gave a clear
definition of the mathematical quantity in the formalism, which was to be
interpreted as the probability wave. It was not a three-dimensional wave
like elastic or radio waves, but a wave in the many-dimensional configura-
tion space, and therefore a rather abstract mathematical quantity.” [14] (pgs
11-12 [emphasis mine]).

An historical sketch of Heisenberg’s “Aristotelian” interpretation of quantum

states can be found in [15], where the author explains how (Section 1):

“the relationship between this use and Aristotle’s notion was not made by
Heisenberg in full detail, beyond noting their common character: that of
signifying the system’s objective capacity to be found later to possess a
property in actuality. For such actualization, Heisenberg required measure-
ment to have taken place, an interaction with external systems that disrupts
the otherwise independent, natural evolution of the quantum system. The
notion of state actualization was later taken up by others, including Shimo-
ny, in the search for a law-like measurement process. Yet, the relation of
quantum potentiality to Aristotle’s original notion has been viewed as mainly
terminological, even by those who used it thus.”

The Aristotelian-Thomistic approach suggests that physical entities may be-

DOI: 10.4236/jmp.2021.127058 963 Journal of Modern Physics

A. Strumia

have according two possible ways of existence:

1) Actual existence
2) Potential existence
The actual existence of a particle, or a quantum, which is non-necessarily lo-
calizable as a point, but may possess even an extended structure (string, brane,
cloud, etc.), is the only one way of existence we may observe and measure.
The potential existence is the way of existence which is “hidden” (i.e., non-
observable) into a wave carrying “information” (the Schrödinger’s wave function
ψ ) about the probability of presence of a particle, which can be “actualized” by
a suitable “causal agent”. The latter agent may act either by a direct interaction
(measurement, environment, interaction with other particles or fields) with the
system governed by ψ , according to the “conservation laws”, or acting disre-
garding the conservation laws in a non-observable way thanks to the uncertainty
Heisenberg’s relation.
Among all the “potential states” of matter, the “higher is the probability” for a
particle or a system to come to actual existence, the “nearest to act” such potency
will be considered (Latin, “potentia proxima”). It must be emphasized that a
“potential existence” is different from being nothing and being actually, as a sort
of intermediate state. And different levels of potency are allowed to matter. So
the quantum vacuum may be considered as an entity which exhibits a “prox-
imate potency” (measured by a probability) to jump to act thanks to Heisen-
berg’s uncertainty, when a suitable “causal agent” is acting on it. “Information”
(candidate to be interpreted as the Aristotelian “formal cause”) hidden into the
wave function requires an agent (“efficient cause”) to become operating on po-
tency organizing it as something actually existent.
So the wave function ψ can be interpreted as a mathematical representation
of the “nearest potency” states of the quantum system governed by it. Each ei-
genstate of the Hamiltonian, or the angular momentum, or the spin or other op-
erator describing the system represents an “actual state” of the system as may be
measured by an observer thanks to his apparatus, or into which the system col-
lapses interacting with the environment or with any other “causal agent”. Col-
lapsing of the wave function represents the passage from “potency” to “act”.
i) The “Potency-Act” interpretation of QM is ontologically “realistic” at least
as it is realistic the “consistent histories” interpretation. Since it is assumed that
probability is intrinsic to the ontology of the “causal agents” acting on a quan-
tum physical system, independently of the measurement and observation in-
struments. Probability is assumed to be intrinsic to the nature of a microscopic
causation process and does not arise as a statistical effect of measurement pro-
cedures.
ii) The “many worlds” or “parallel universes” of the Everett’s interpretation of
QM are admissible in the frame of “Potency-Act” interpretation as worlds exist-
ing, but “in potency” and not actually, while only one of them is assumed to be
“actually” existent and therefore “observable”, as what we usually call “the real

DOI: 10.4236/jmp.2021.127058 964 Journal of Modern Physics

A. Strumia

world”.
iii) As a remarkable epistemological consequence it follows that the “Occam’s
razor” principle which requires to minimize the number of entities and assump-
tions within a scientific theory, is fully satisfied. No superfluous actual worlds
are required: “Entities must not be multiplied without necessity” (Latin, “entia
non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate”).

4. The “Potency-Act” Interpretation after Heisenberg

Significantly it must be emphasized that recently, about a century after Heisen-
berg, a “Potency-Act” Aristotelian-Thomistic interpretation of QM has come to
the attention of several researchers and philosophers of QM ontology. Among
them we may mention, e.g. Ignacio Silva [16], Robert R. Bishop and Joseph E.
Brenner [17], Alfred Driessen [18], Boris Bozňjak [19], and others.
According to Silva:

“With this interpretation Heisenberg abandons the Parmenidean/Cartesian

materialistic ontology to embrace a new ontology for quantum phenomena:
the ontology of act and potency. He moves from the rigid mechanism of
Cartesian ontology to a richer Aristotelian ontology. According to Heisen-
berg, developments in quantum mechanics have given rise to a more subtle
concept of reality than that based in classical physics. The univocal notion
of being assumed in classical physics should be left aside for an analogical
notion of being. This thought opens a path for a new development of the
concepts of philosophy of nature of act and potency.” [16] (pg 641).

A “classical” suggestion of what happens in a binary quantum system (like the

electron spin), thanks to which one can guess what it happens, is provided by a
coin tossed on air and later fallen down to ground. When the coin is flying on air
its state is undetermined, being “potentially” either “head” or “tail”, in a sort of
mixture of both states.
Only after its fall onto the ground it reaches an “actual”, definite “eigenstate”,
1
which may be, with the same probability , either “head” or “tail”.
2
The electron spin, as any other binary quantum system, behaves just as a
“superposition” (linear combination) of two eigenstates ↑ (up) and ↓
(down):
ψ = α↑ ↑ + α↓ ↓ . (4)

We can interpret such a superposition as a state “in potency” of the electron,

which collapses into an “actual” eigenstate (“up” or “down”) after an actuating
causal process (interaction with other systems, measurement apparatus, envi-
ronment). So a binary system like the “Schrödinger’s cat” is not actually dead
and alive at the same time, but is potentially dead or alive before being observed,
since it is “actually alive” and “potentially dead” until the poison ampule is bro-
ken and vice-versa after the latter event. According to “Potency-Act” interpreta-

DOI: 10.4236/jmp.2021.127058 965 Journal of Modern Physics

A. Strumia

tion of QM no paradoxical situation happens.

Only the universe within which the cat is in its “actual eigenstate” is the “ac-
tual universe”, while the so called “parallel universe” is “in potency”.
Therefore in a “Potency-Act” interpretation of QM we may also assume that
“waves”, as mathematically described by the wave function ψ , involve the
states of the system “in potency”, while the “particles” (i.e., the extended struc-
tures like quanta, strings, branes, clouds, etc.) involve the states of the system “in
act”. The mathematical formalism of operators, implying the uncertainty prin-
ciple for non-commuting physical quantities:
1
∆A∆B ≥ [ A, B ] , (5)
2
[ A, B=] AB − BA being the commutator, when referred to the conjugate op-
erators of position x and momentum p of a “particle”:
1
∆x ∆p ≥ , (6)
2
being [ x, p ] = i , simply declares that the point like representation of a struc-
tured system is unphysical, being too simplistic.

5. Different Types of Causal Agents

The “realistic” character of probability which is presupposed in the “Poten-
cy-Act” interpretation of QM, has its remote ontological foundation in the Aris-
totelian-Thomistic theory of causality.
In fact, according to the latter physical and metaphysical view of reality, three
kinds of behavior of “causal agents” may be observed in nature.
1) The “deterministic” causal agents (Latin, ad unum);
2) The “probabilistic” causal agents (Latin, ut in pluribus or highly probable;
ut in paucioribus or less probable);
3) The “free” causal agents (Latin, ad utrumlibet or ambivalent).
The first ones behave like causes in “classical physics” (like forces and fields),
according to which the evolution phase trajectory of a system is “bi-univocally”
determined assigning the initial (or the boundary) conditions beside the physical
laws governing the examined phenomenon.
The second ones behave like causes in “quantum physics” (like quantum po-
tentials and quantum fields), since the effect of their action is non-deterministic
and non-univocal, so that the phase trajectories of a system are undetermined
and only probability clouds can be estimated. Heisenberg himself says that:

“in modern physics the concept of possibility, that played such a decisive
role in Aristotle’s philosophy, has moved again into a central place.” [20]

The third ones behave like “human freedom”, being unpredictable in each in-
dividual choice which may be indifferently oriented, if it is left alone.
Manifestly according to the “Aristotelian-Thomistic” philosophy of nature, on
which the “Potency-Act” interpretation of QM is based, the probability is intrin-

DOI: 10.4236/jmp.2021.127058 966 Journal of Modern Physics

A. Strumia

sic to the system and is not induced by external or subjective factors. Moreover:

“the transition from the ‘possible’ to the ‘actual’ takes place as soon as the
interaction between the object and the measuring device, and thereby with
the rest of the world, has come into play; it is not connected with the act of
registration of the result in the mind of the observer.” [14] (pgs 54-55).

According to Heisenberg the “causal agent” of the transition from a “poten-

tial” to an “actual” state of a system has an objective character and is neither a
sort of subjective mental projection of mind, in the sense of idealistic philosophy
nor a spontaneous event happening in absence of an “adequate causation”.

6. The Example of the “Beam Splitter” Interferometer

Let us now apply the “Potency-Act” interpretation of QM to the interference
phenomenon happening in a wave “splitter apparatus” like the one shown in
Figure 1.
A photon or an electron described by the wave function ψ is incoming into
the apparatus (see “IN” in Figure 1, where it splits into two half particles (waves
of half amplitude). The transmitted half wave proceeds horizontally with unal-
tered phase. So the reflected wave which is running down maintains its original
phase being submitted to an “internal” reflection. In S1, S2 each one of the co-
herent half wave meets, at the same distance, an ordinary glass, where is submit-
ted to “external” reflection, which reverses its phase (phase shift of π ). Even-
tually the half waves reach “OUT” where they split a second time into half a half
wave, the red wave reflecting “internally”, the blue wave reflecting “externally”. On
“OUT” two observers (detectors) are placed on the horizontal and on the vertical
directions.
The horizontal observer detects two superposed waves in phase concordance,
while the vertical observer detects nothing since the two superposed waves
emerging from the apparatus are in phase opposition and destroy themselves.

Figure 1. Interference in a photon/electron wave splitter apparatus (click for animation,

http://www.albertostrumia.it/sites/default/files/Animations/QMechanics/SplitterOnde.m
4v).

DOI: 10.4236/jmp.2021.127058 967 Journal of Modern Physics

A. Strumia

According to the “many worlds” interpretation the photon/electron wave ob-

served by the horizontal detector lives in our world, while the other wave which
is not observable by the vertical detector lives in a “parallel universe”. A some-
how strange situation!
While following a “Potency-Act” interpretation we can say the horizontal ob-
server sees the particle which is “actually” existent, while the vertical observer
cannot see what has come back from “act” to “potency”, because of the action of
a suitable “causal agent” (the different numbers of external and internal reflec-
tions along the two ways implying destructive interference). The actual world
required is the only one which is observable, while the so called “parallel world”
(non-observable) needs no longer to be supposed as actually existing, but only
“potentially” existing as hidden into the capabilities of matter.

7. The Quantum Fluctuation of Vacuum

Another relevant question involves the “quantum fluctuations of vacuum”. It is
known that particle-antiparticle pairs (e.g., electron-positron) may emerge from
“quantum vacuum” under the “external causal action” of an electromagnetic
field.
Therefore people is investigating if the universe may have arisen because of an
“internal causal action” arising spontaneously as a quantum fluctuation. Is such
an internal action coming from some “informational causal agent” acting from
“outside” the material universe, being in itself “immaterial” as any information?
Moreover, does such information play a “teleonomical” role driving the evo-
lution of universe from a vacuum fluctiation towards “attractors” like elementa-
ry particles, nuclei, atoms, molecules, stars, galaxies, planetary systems, living
beings?
As Boris Kožnjak observed:

“Final causes in fact provide a better ontology for quantum mechanics than
spontaneous causation. The idea of ‘spontaneity’ is unanalyzable and there-
fore of little use in quantum mechanics.
In addition, it is ontologically sterile in the context of quantum measure-
ment, as shown by a historical and conceptual review of the role of efficient
causation in experimental physics.” [19]

8. Conclusions
We have proposed an introductory sketch on the recent revival of interest in
Aristotelian-Thomistic “Potency-Act” theory of matter states (and more gener-
ally “entities”) in order to provide an intriguing ontological interpretation of
quantum physics, as originally was suggested by Werner Heisenberg at the very
beginning of quantum mechanics. New perspectives appear especially promising
even in order to rediscover the Thomistic doctrine of “analogy of being” (Latin,
“analogia entis”) [21].
The latter way of investigation, about quantum physics, appears to be com-

DOI: 10.4236/jmp.2021.127058 968 Journal of Modern Physics

A. Strumia

plementary to a parallel rediscovery of the “Form-Matter” Aristotelian-Thomistic

doctrine, in the context of information theory and its relations to complexity,
self organization and the biology of living systems [22]. Even if it would be, at
present, at least arbitrary to identify the Aristotelian “form” with our “informa-
tion” and the Aristotelian “potency” with “quantum probability” as mathemati-
cally described by the wave function ψ , the early suggestion by Heisenberg
seems today more and more relevant.

Acknowledgement
I want to thank especially J.E. Brenner for relevant interesting suggestions he
proposed to improve the quality of my paper.

Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this pa-
per.

References
[1] Penrose, R. (2004) The Road to Reality. A Complete Guid to the Laws of the Un-
iverse. Jonathan Cape, London.
[2] Deutsch, D. (2004) It from Qubit. In: Barrow, J., et al., Eds., Science & Ultimate Re-
ality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 90-102.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814990.008
[3] Dür, W. and Heusler, S. (2014) The Physics Teacher, 52, 489.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1463
https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4897588
[4] Faye, J. (2019) Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/qm-copenhagen
[5] Vaidman, L. (2018) Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/qm-manyworlds
[6] Popper, K.R. (1992) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge, London and New
York.
[7] Kuhn, T.S. (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chica-
go Press, Chicago and London.
[8] Feyerabend, P. (1993) Against Method. Verso, London.
[9] Baker, A. (2016) Simplicity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/simplicity
[10] Zeh, H.D. (1995) Decoherence: Basic Concepts and Their Interpretation.
https://arXiv:quant-ph/9506020
[11] Griffiths, R.B. (2019) The Consistent Histories Approach to Quantum Mechanics.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-consistent-histories
[12] Myrvold, W. (2018) Philosophical Issues in Quantum Theory. Stanford Encyclope-
dia of Philosophy.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/qt-issues
[13] Lazarou, D.K. (2018) Interpretation of Quantum Theory. An Overview. Stanford

DOI: 10.4236/jmp.2021.127058 969 Journal of Modern Physics

A. Strumia

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3466

[14] Heisenberg, W. (1962) Physics and Philosophy. Harper (Reprint Penguin Classics,
2000), New York.
[15] Jaeger, G. (2017) Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 375, Article ID:
20160390. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0390
[16] Silva, I. (2013) Werner Heisenberg and Thomas Aquinas on Natural Indetermin-
ism. The Dominican Council, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Oxford and Malden.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nbfr.12036
[17] Bishop, R.R. and Brenner, J.E. (2017) Potentiality, Actuality and Non-Separability in
Quantum and Classical Physics: Res Potentiae in the Macroscopic World. Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.01471
[18] Driessen, A. (2020) Acta Philosophica, 29, 395-413.
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16265/1/Aristotle_and_Quantum_Mechanics.pdf
[19] Kožnjak, B. (2020) Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 51, 459-480.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-020-09500-y
[20] Heisenberg, W. (1960) Wort und Wirklichkeit, 1, 32-62.
[21] Strumia, A. (2007) Acta Biomedica, 78, 32-38.
https://www.mattioli1885journals.com/index.php/actabiomedica/article/view/4608
[22] Strumia, A. (2020) From Fractals and Cellular Automata to Biology. Information as
Order Hidden within Chance. World Scientific, Singapore.
https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/11743
https://doi.org/10.1142/11743

DOI: 10.4236/jmp.2021.127058 970 Journal of Modern Physics