Preface

The subject of classical physics is description of the changes in physical properties of objects in a space–time continuum. Consideration of exclusively object–object interactions held out a hope of completely excluding an individual observer (and, correspondingly, a subjective component) from the paradigm of natural science. However, the special theory of relativity, formulating the space–time transformations during the description of objects by observers in different frames of reference, implicitly introduces an observer into physics. Actually, the laws for transformation of reality from the standpoints of different frames of reference—those of an observer and the associated system of reference—were introduced. Thus, even the classical physics failed to avoid completely the participation of a person, an observer. Remaining within the frame of an object-based approach to description of reality and regarding this as the only method possible, we come to the paradoxes of quantum mechanics. We assume that to introduce this field of knowledge, currently being a formal tool, into the range of our comprehension, it is necessary to admit the following postulates:

• The presence of an observer in any scientific theory is a natural fact, since it is the observer who is a “receiver” of signals and an “interpreter” of information;
• There exist evolutionarily established algorithms for assemblage of sensations (the first signal system) into object concepts realized in a certain mental space. This subjective component is also objective and should be taken into account when interpreting our concepts of reality;
• Over a long-term social development, the second signal system has acquired a semiotic object-based method for reinterpreting the reality in our consciousness relying not only on the reality per se “beyond sensations” but rather on its mirror image on a certain “mental map” that procreates our space–time concept of the world; and
• Such analytical description is not the only possible method for simulating reality. Another one is a systems approach, implying the absence of partitioning within the limits of a system and, correspondingly, the absence of space–time relationships. (In particular, the integral physical system “emitter–barrier–screen” displays interference properties, while any attempts to part it into objects immediately lead to paradoxes.) This monograph is an attempt of consistent substantiation of the described standpoint by the example of quantum physics. The monograph comprises introduction and two parts and is written as a free discussion of the problems in question. The first part briefs the main principles underlying the operation of classical and quantum computers. The main attention there is focused on experimental facts, their interpretation, and analysis of the paradoxes in quantum mechanics. The title of this monograph requires a separate explanation. The research in the field of informatics and formalization of the operation principles of classical and quantum computers are a mirror image of our own algorithms of consciousness. Actually, the mental processes of coding and logical reasoning have been modeled over an extended time period. Be it a conscious level or not, one more reality—a virtual one—has been created step by step within our reality with the help of computing technique. Similar to the Russian matryoshkas, the dolls nested into one another, these realities in part repeated themselves. Most likely, this route in science is not accidental. It looks most promising when following it with a goal in mind. This does not imply a reduction of the activity of a man of sense to functioning of a certain automaton. However, following this way, we can try to formalize the describable things, which is considered in the first part of this monograph, as well as the characters that distinguish a man from an automaton, which will be described in the second part, now in press. All this also influenced the style of the monograph, making it multilayered. Presumably, this (as well as the content itself, extending beyond the traditional scope) requires certain efforts from a reader. The main thing for the authors was to consistently rationalize the initial postulates as much as it was possible, and we would be grateful for any criticism related to their essence.