The following text encapsulates the lastest findings in neurology and psychology. It is intended to show that the 'strangeness' of some of the findings in quantum mechanics are possibly connected to assumptions about the way the brain processes data and that these assumptions are possibly 'misplaced'.
The brain processes data in the form of wholes and aspects. The data is received and transmitted in either a serial or parrallel manner and our senses function within this whole/aspect+serial/ parrallel context which means that ALL communication also functions within this context.
The main method we use to analyse a whole is that of dichotomisation which means cutting into two. This method is more a method of refining our knowledge of the whole and thus it operates within the context set by the whole.
As we 'cut' the whole, the first step is to lay-out all of the parts. The next step is to then analyse all of the static and dynamic aspects.To use an example from mathematics, the wholes are the whole numbers and the parts are the rational numbers. The static and dynamic aspects are the irrational and complex numbers in that these deal more with relationships rather than with 'things'. (In passing we also note that any part can also be seen as a whole in it's own right and thus will also have aspects. It is thus context that determines whether we are looking at a 'part' or a 'whole').
The traditional role of Science has been to 'map' reality in such a way that the maps are cross-cultural and are precise enough to work as guides. These maps are concensus-derived in that, by using dichotomies (A/~A) we allow for individual (or even cultural) differences in interpretations that still lead to the same 'result' since the differences work within the extremes set by the elements of the dichotomy.
These maps are thus explicit in that they are designed to have all of the parts layed-out in front of the user such that there is little contradiction to the extent where relational information is also EITHER/OR in the form of unmixed colour codes.This is the advantage of using dichotomy to break things down into explicit parts - what you could call EITHER/OR states of existence - but a 'problem' arises when we move into the area of static and dynamic relationships.
As you break-down the whole so the level of 'cutting' can be extremely refined to the extent where you end-up with a 'continuum', with pole A at one end and pole B at the other, but when we start to form parts into groups we are starting to study relationships and we do this with the idea that all we have to do is stick the parts together; which is the reverse of our act of cutting. However there is a subtle problem here in that we are no longer cutting a space (analysis) but more trying to fit parts into a space (synthesis); thus even though we appear to be analysing we are also synthesising. This emphasis on at least 'threeness' is overlooked when we cut but comes into it's own when we try to blend for we find that some parts cannot share the same space.
The best way to describe the 'sharing' of a space is by using wave analogies. This is so because waves can occupy the same space in that wave A and wave B can pass through each other and at a specific moment 'create' a virtual wave (C) (an example of superposition). This is done through the influences of the different phases and amplitudes such that their constructive and destructive interferences 'create' C.
These superposition states can be considered as BOTH/AND states and in logic are equivalent to the excluded middle - this can be symbolised as C = A AND B (same as C = A AND ~A). (in sets this is the intersection).
What happens here is we loose some information about A and B for the period of time of the relationship but gain information in the form of C.
Considering this, we can say that all parts of any whole can be considered as each having a unique wave form and that there is a high probability that some of the waves are in direction opposition in that their phase and amplitudes are such than when combined cancel each other out.
What this cancellation does is make C into a strait line (or flat surface etc), and this line can be interpreted as 'nothing'. Thus when we line-up all of the relationships based on pairs, triplets, quads etc rather than there being a continuum of relations we find a degree of 'lumpyness' where some parts have been unable to 'mix' with others and thus 'nothing' and other areas when parts combine like hand and glove and C has a definite 'form'.
(NOTE: these relationships are contained in the power set of any set. Thus in maths the parts become the harmonic series and the irrational numbers are made of different elements from the harmonic series made into infinite series. Thus PI, e, phi, sin, cosine, etc can be symbolised as infinite series since they deal with relationships rather than 'counting'.)
This 'lumpyness' is a characteristic of synthesis where rather than look at the whole or individual parts (EITHER/OR states) we want to look at the relational aspects (BOTH/AND states), and as I have demonstrated elsewhere, there is a strong suggestion that the method of dichotomous analysis is hard-wired and so would the synthesis concept.
Now consider what happens when we apply statistical methods to synthesis rather than analysis, especially if we 'assume' that the partial integration of parts is just the reverse of the differentation of parts. If we do not build in a 'fudge' factor to compensate for the lumpyness - the presence of BOTH/AND conditions amongst the EITHER/OR states - then our statistics will show biases that are not really there.
With this in mind we can consider, for example, the recent tests on the EPR paradox and Bell's inequalities. These tests involve the analysis of pairs of photons which, since we are looking at a relationship MUST SHOW LUMPYNESS UNLESS COMPENSATED FOR. (this even raises an issue with conservation laws which are dichotomous in form (and thus 'parts') but combining them may lead to 'lumps').
What this implies is that apparent statistical significants could be invalid and mearly 'anomolies' created by the lumpyness inherent in synthetic methods.
With the understanding of synthesis and it's property of 'lumpyness' we can now easily see 'why' we have 'jumps' in QM. For example, an electron out on it's own can be treated as whole with 'aspects' but the moment it is bound to an atom it becomes a part and when we analyse it's relationships we find 'lumps' in the energy levels.
Consider Planck's work and the discovery of the unit of action (quanta) in that it emerged from the analysis of relational concepts (and thus synthesis and thus 'lumps').
My point is that analysis and synthesis are properties of mind and our experiments and instruments are extentions of mind. What has happened in the past is that we have followed the pattern of making distinctions of the whole and then it's parts but have possibly faultered when it comes to analysing the underlaying principles of relationships; we have assumed that the path of both methods, analysis and synthesis, are the same but only different in direction but this is not the case, they are different in method and thus the tools we use to analyse these paths need to compensate for these differences.