243 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers 1 Received: 4th March 2022; revised: 10th November 2022; accepted: 22nd November 2022 Probabilistic Interpretation of Observer Effect on Entrepreneurial Opportunity David LEONG University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia, david.leong@canberra.edu.au Background: In quantum mechanics, the observer effect categorically states that observing a phenomenon chang- es it. This research explores a probabilistic interpretation of entrepreneurial opportunity and explains the observer effect reflecting on Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment. This approach addresses opportunity as a “possibility” concept reinterpreting it from multiple observers’ perspectives and the cruciality of action to cause wave function collapse to an emergent reality. This paper intends to resolve the epistemological paradox and ‘opportunity’ war by re-contextualising opportunity as an artefact and positing it as a probability wave with a range of possibilities until alert entrepreneurs act on it. Method: This conceptual development relies on literature review as a research methodology, using reasoning by analogy for the progress of theory and metaphors for theorisation. Results: This conceptual narrative strengthens the epistemological foundation focused on possibility and probability (illustrated through wave function) to sharpen the definition of opportunity and action theory. The observer effect in opportunity is underexplored in entrepreneurial scholarship. This study features how the observer effect influences the evolving state of opportunity. Opportunity is affected by other observers and the entrepreneur’s imagination, so- cial construction and effort. Each involved agent relates and interacts to give rise to possibilities in opportunities. The interrelations and interdependence are complex, giving rise to superposition with a mixed state with many possibili- ties. Conclusions: The contribution of this research is manifold from a theoretical and practical level. It presents a quan- tum-like model where an ‘un-acted’ opportunity is in superposition (multiple possibilities emerging simultaneously until it is enacted), expanding on Ramoglou and Tsang’s (2016) view on propensity. The interactional effects – inter- fering and entangling between agents observing the same opportunity generate possibilities. The potentiality and the many-possibilities states in the opportunity artefact hold great promise in entrepreneurial research. Keywords: Observer effect, Quantum mechanics; Quantum theory, Wave-particle, Opportunity, Entrepreneurship DOI: 10.2478/orga-2022-0016 1 Introduction The mere observation of a phenomenon impacts the phenomenon itself and necessarily changes it (Baclawski, 2018). Cranford (2021: 2571) defined it “as the distur- bance of an observed system by the very act of observa- tion). This paper argues that opportunity is presented as a wave of possibilities when unobserved. Upon being ob- served by multiple observers, the observation interferes with the competitive state and becomes an inevitable re- ality. The “observation complexifies the situation since the interaction involves an unavoidable “disturbance” of the thing being observed” (Cranford, 2021: 2571). At the same time, other observers are in varying states of action and seeking to exploit the same opportunity. The reflexivity of agencies (observers and others) is both a cause and effect of indeterminacy, and the creative force of each creates un- certainty but “also animating agentic efforts in the face of the resulting uncertainty” (Alvarez & Porac, 2020, p. 742). “The quantum trajectories can be ascribed a degree of re- ality in terms of quantum measurement theory” (Wiseman, 1996: 205). The observation of opportunity itself, as a 244 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers phenomenon, changes as it is observed. On registering and affirming the opportunity, the entrepreneur transits from the possible to the actual through entrepreneurial action. This explains widespread frustration among researchers that the entrepreneurship field is getting more questions and pieces of puzzles than answers, with no unifying pic- ture emerging (Davidsson, 2003; Gartner, 1988; Koppl & Minniti, 2003). Entrepreneurs are portrayed as economic agents equipped with skills to recognise opportunities that allow them to peer into an unknowable future (Ramoglou, 2021). Yet, the outcome of any discovery of opportunity is uncer- tain. It is a paradox “since nobody can know opportunities ex-ante” (Ramoglou, 2021: 2). At best, entrepreneurs have opportunity beliefs - not knowing when their ventures can succeed (Ramoglou, 2021). Knight (1921: 353) argued, “in the world as it is, where all human designs and acts are fraught with uncertainty”. Existing economic paradigms that are strongly influ- enced by Newtonian physics and its mechanistic approach (Koçaslan, 2014) with concepts featuring determinacy, predictability, divisibility, rationality, the notion of “ei- ther-or”, order, reliability and validity, objectivity and impartiality, testability, consistency, independence, entita- tivity, causality, bivalency, atomism, linearity, proportion- ality, stability, classification/categorising and reductionism have limitations. They cannot deal with the knowledge problems of entrepreneurship. On the other hand, indeter- minism, probability, nonlinearity, complexity, fuzziness, interdependence, inter-relatedness, duality (wave-particle 1 ), intersubjectivity, nonlocal causes, uncertainty, comple- mentarity, disproportionalities between cause and effect chain, sensitivity to initial conditions (chaos theory), po- tentiality, unknowability (or knowability in multiple quan- tum states) (Dulupçu & Okçu, 2000) provide greater inter- pretive and theoretic representations in entrepreneurship. This paper introduces quantum referents to model in- teracting systems between multiple observers and the op- portunity artefact. It further argues that the observation of opportunity changes as it is observed. The fundamental concepts introduced are wave/particle duality, the observer effect, and superposition 2 . Finally, the implications of the- ory and practice are discussed. 2 Literature Review 2.1 Epistemological Problems Opportunity, as a phenomenon, should be expressed as an artefact, and this viewpoint challenges the existing definitions of how opportunity is formed (Leong, 2021). The dominant views of opportunity are the discovery and creation views. Shane & Venkataraman (2000) concocted a theory of entrepreneurship centring on Kirzner’s (1973) assertion that entrepreneurial opportunities exist as discov- erable phenomena (Kirzner, 1973, 1997, 1980). Kirzner’s (1973) opportunity alertness became the predominant theme in entrepreneurial research. Short et al. (2010: 40) emphasised that opportunity is necessary for entrepreneur- ship and that “without an opportunity, there is no entrepre- neurship”. Put differently, without action, there is no en- trepreneurship. Liubertė and Dimov (2021: 1) noted that the articulation of “opportunity is an essential part of the denotation and actualisation of the opportunity” by draw- ing a framework differentiating “between words as content of speech (“opportunity”) and world as its object (oppor- tunity), connected via illocutionary force (e.g. assertion, promise, intention) and used for perlocutionary effect (e.g. persuading, convincing)” (Liubertė & Dimov, 2021: 2). “Entrepreneurship is a practice of identifying and cre- ating from what is relatively unknown, new or emerging” (Neck et al., 2014: 3). Although the discovery approach has been influential in the extant literature, competing on- tological approaches such as creation (Alvarez & Barney, 2005, 2007, 2019) and actualisation (Ramoglou & Tsang, 2015, 2017a, 2017b) are gaining traction to offer alterna- tive views on opportunities. The semantics and linguistic juggernauts are problematic (Dimov, 2020; Ramoglou & McMullen, 2022) as the varied interpretations enormously complicate the definition. Ramoglou (2021) argued that any entrepreneurial foreknowledge is paradoxical and posed the question: how a knowable opportunity can be situated in an unknowable future? The discovery approach presupposes entrepreneurial foreknowledge and assumes that opportunity can be known ex-ante. Ramoglou argued that opportunity cannot be known ex-ante and asserted that the semantics, expressions and language of opportunity discovery are like a distorting mirror “trapped in illusions of infallible perception” (Ramoglou, 2021: 2). The other dominant view is the creation approach re- lying on an iterative, incremental and inductive process for resource utilisation. By using available socio-material 1 1 Wave-particle duality is a quantum mechanics concept where every quantum entity may be described as either particle or wave. Couder and Fort (2012: 1) revealed from their experiments that “forms of wave-particle duality exists in classical system with emergence of quantum-like behaviours” 2 Superposition describes a quantum system in multiple states at the same time until it is measured. It describes a fuzzy boundary between the classical and quantum worlds where no certainty exists yet (Monroe et al., 1996). 245 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers resources on hand, entrepreneurs work on the available means and resources to create new opportunistic ends in- crementally and experimentally (Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Foss & Klein, 2020; Shepherd et al., 2021). Effectuation is closely associated with the creation approach. “Core to effectuation is the idea that rather than discover and exploit opportunities that pre-exist in the world, the effectual en- trepreneur is one who ‘fabricates’ opportunities from the mundane realities” (Sarasvathy, 2009: xiii), and effectua- tion lies in the logic of control (Sarasvathy, 2001). Although some researchers argue that the subjective or socially constructed nature of opportunity makes it impos- sible to separate opportunity from the individual, others contend that opportunity is an objective construct visible to or created by the knowledgeable or attuned entrepre- neur. Either way, a set of weakly held assumptions about the nature and sources of opportunity appear to dominate much of the discussion in the literature (McMullen et al., 2007: 237). The epistemological tension with this opportunity theorisation raises two provocative questions: (a) why do entrepreneurial opportunities exist and (b) why do some people and not others discover and exploit these opportu- nities” (Leong, 2021: 2150021-3). The intervening years generated new research streams and dialogues on the na- ture of the opportunity, particularly the middle-ground definitions (Davidsson, 2015; Foss & Klein, 2020; Ramo- glou & Tsang, 2017). Yet, at the core of the recognition and pursuit of opportunity, uncertainty grips entrepreneurs in most instances (Leong, 2021). Knowing that opportu- nity is the necessary anchor for the actualisation process, the entrepreneurs need an imagined future state while im- mersed in differing degrees of uncertainty, defined by the opportunity belief (Ramoglou, 2017, 2017, 2021). The force of external circumstances acting on the entrepreneurs is never-ending (Davidsson, 2021) and forms one part of Ramoglou’s “knowable opportunity-ingredients whose knowability varies across contexts” (Ramoglou, 2021: 1). Ramoglou (2021: 2) translated the problem of “opportu- nity unknowability” to manageable and reducible “episte- mological problem of knowable and unknowable Oppor- tunity-Ingredients (OIs)… explain the fact that particular ingredients may be knowable does not make opportunities knowable because the entirety of Opportunity-Ingredients can never be knowable”. We argue that opportunity is an artefact with perceived potentialities expanding on Ramoglou and Tsang’s (2016: 416) notion of propensity where opportunity exists “akin to the unactualised propensity of seeds”. Here, we argue that the opportunity has many seeds’ propensities or possibili- ties. Entrepreneurial opportunity straddles many possibil- ities, and according to Ramoglou and Tsang (2016: 430), entrepreneurship “stands on the thin line between possi- bility and actuality and therefore faces unique conceptu- al difficulties unknown to disciplines studying actualised phenomena with more discernible patterns of causality”. This paper finally discusses these potentialities as probability waves 3 . 2.2 Resolving the definitional clumsiness Davidsson (2021) suggested ditching Shanian’s dis- covery and Alvarez-Barnean creation views since these views constrain future entrepreneurial research. Foss and Klein (2020) called for the abandonment of the opportu- nity construct since current standpoints and attributes of the opportunity construct obscure its intended meaning. “Opportunities can at best be manifested ex-post, when entrepreneurial outcomes are successful. What entrepre- neurship scholars mean by “opportunity” is simply a busi- ness idea, plan, or belief, which may or may not turn out as the entrepreneur imagines” (Foss & Klein, 2020: 367). Conceptualising opportunity as an artefact-centred design provides an alternative conceptualisation of opportunity in entrepreneurship research constrained by their current definitions (as discovered and created). Whether the op- portunity is discovered as pre-existing causes or created through the ultimate consequences of entrepreneurial ac- tion, entrepreneurship scholars generally agree that the ba- sic definition of opportunities is about lucrative market im- perfections (Berglund et al., 2020) situated in uncertainty and disequilibrium. Whether opportunities are objective, subjective, or social construction makes it impossible to separate opportunity from the observer. Either way, a set of weakly held assumptions about the nature and sources of opportunity appear to dominate much of the discussion in the literature” (McMullen et al., 2007: 237). The weakly held assumptions about the properties and nature of the opportunity, including the sources from which it arises, need a reformulated construct. If the op- portunity is a visible objective construct recognisable by some and not others, “uncertainty plays no role because they are known as soon as they are discovered” (Ramo- glou, 2021: 4). Such linear assumptions are an oversim- plification of the opportunity’s construct. Here, we argue 1 3 Probability wave of a quantum system is characterized by a wave propagating through space in which the square of the magni- tude of the wave at any given point in time corresponds to the probability of finding the particle at that point. Researchers debate on the best way to think about quantum mechanics with many competing schools of thought (including the Copenhagen School) and the views are referred to as “interpretations” of quantum theory. All these interpretations rely on the idea of probability in a fundamental way. 246 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers that opportunity’s state is not situated in one fixed causal relationship with a determined outcome but is presented with possibilities depending on the contexts (and Ramo- glou’s opportunity ingredients). The interactions between the different known opportunity ingredients concoct other possibilities. Opportunity’s indeterminacy needs addressing since opportunity’s subjective or socially constructed nature is contingent on the observer. Short et al. (2010: 40) asserted that “opportunities are one of the key concepts that define the boundary and exchange conditions”. The entrepreneur, as the observer, is situated at the boundary and exchange conditions; any exchange or exploitation is based on the interpretation and evaluation of the opportunity. Nonethe- less, the fundamental issues of the opportunity construct and its properties remain elusive (Davidsson, 2017; Di- mov, 2011; Leong, 2021). Burt (2004) used the imagery of the structural holes 4 to represent opportunities, with alert entrepreneurs able to broadly see the information discrep- ancies/dissonance and arbitraging this information to their advantage. Burt stressed that entrepreneurs exploit struc- tural holes that lie between constrained positions (Walker et al., 1997). Opportunities can only be manifested ex-post when the venture proves successful and is contingent on a true-pos- itive outcome (Foss & Klein, 2020). Therefore, the inter- vening period from recognition to entrepreneurial action that results in either success or failure must be a belief. This opportunity belief is subject to change at the inter- face/boundary between the entrepreneur and the environ- ment. Therefore, entrepreneurs constantly scan for lu- crative market imperfections to form opportunity beliefs. These beliefs are continually changing and updated when new information is revealed. This information includes competitive counter-actions, imitations, and interactions among heterogeneous stakeholders. Presenting opportu- nity as an artefact with many possibilities provides inter- pretative flexibility. “Rarely new ideas or concepts evolve full-blown and are totally ready for use, unless it’s a hole- in-one eureka moment, as it requires time and expendi- ture of efforts to shape the idea to fruition and the process is almost never linear. There are false starts and dead ends, ups and downs and “backing and forthing” as the entrepre- neurial pathway unfolds” (Leong, 2021: 23) The entrepreneur, as an observer, processes the in- formation, or lack of it, in that space and time and has to decide whether to act under uncertainty since any action arising shifts the trajectory from possible to actual. The observation disturbs the possibility as the observer may become another competitor to pursue that opportunity (Figure 3). Such competitive acts impact the other agents locking in to observe the same opportunity. Other agents’ actions affect the possibility state of the opportunity. Thus, we argue that such observations by any agents, including the entrepreneur, influence the opportunity and its various possibility states. The re-contextualisation of opportunity as an artefact provides convenient and interpretive flexi- bility. 2.3 Re-contextualising opportunity as artefact and possibility object The role of opportunity in entrepreneurship must be understood in its proper context. This paper suggests re-contextualising opportunity as an artefact and a possi- bility object. Ramoglou and McMullen (2022) argued that opportunity is a possibility concept situated in the future. The opportunity artefact, when unobserved, is represent- ed by a wave with different potentialities and possibilities. These states are mixed states (or superimpositions). When observation is made, the mixed states collapse into a pure state 5 (or actual state). In a way, an opportunity is proba- bilistically framed. Here, this paper asserts that every ob- servation generates a probability distribution with differ- ent possibilities rather than defined by a single possibility. With Ramoglou’s (2021) knowable opportunity ingredi- ents, entrepreneurs abstract information from all possible sources to understand to form the belief to inform entre- preneurial action. This understanding impacts the degree of believability and motivates action on the opportunity belief. Opportunity-as-artefact changes over time as infor- mation is discovered and entrepreneurs gain experience and knowledge/information—the strength of the initial opportunity formation changes with new and emerging knowledge (Leong, 2021). Eckhardt and Shane (2003: 340) discussed entrepreneurial opportunities manifesting themselves in multiple ways – “by the locus of the changes that generate the opportunity; by the source of the oppor- tunities themselves; and by the initiator of the change”. Dimov (2011: 62-63) added: An opportunity epitomises the symbolic aspect of the interaction between entrepreneurs and their environments. It can be regarded as an evolving blueprint for action, syn- thesising the entrepreneur’s sense of, expectations about, 1 4 Burt’s theory suggests that individuals have various advantages from their location in social structures and neighbourhoods. A structural hole represents a gap between individuals who have complementary sources to information that involves “information breadth, timing and arbitrage advantages of network brokers” (Burt, 2021: 384). 5 Mixed and pure states refer to a quantum system. A pure state refers to a quantum state with exact information about the quantum system; whereas the mixed state is the combination of probabilities of the information about the quantum system (Zhang et al., 2007). 247 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers and aspirations for the future, and can help us understand what the entrepreneur does at every step of the way from within the worldview that the entrepreneur holds. The entrepreneurs’ worldviews influence the way op- portunity beliefs are formed. Still, the clarity of the op- portunity-as-artefact depends on the observer’s interpreta- tion and the observer’s interaction with the environment under conditions of uncertainty. It provides interpretative flexibility where prevailing theories on opportunities (Di- mov, 2011; Eckhardt & Shane, 2003; Sarason et al., 2006) present theoretically problematic definitions with limited practical use. For example, Berglund et al. (2020: 40) sug- gested making “opportunities real by treating them as arti- ficial” (Berglund et al., 2020: 40). 2.4 Observer effect The observer effect is predominantly featured in phys- ics, where observation and uncertainty undergird the fun- damental aspects of quantum physics (Baclawski, 2018). The observer effect generally describes circumstances in which the observed entity is affected by the curious ob- server. For example, Jeraj (2014: 201) noted the interrela- tionship between curiosity and optimism influencing en- trepreneurial action, particularly when entrepreneurs “hold positive expectancies for their future”. Jeraj (2014) argued that curious observers with optimism have a higher level of self-efficacy and therefore are likelier to act. In physics, the term describes circumstances in which the mere act of observation changes the observed phenomenon (Thomp- son, 2016). Quantum mechanics states that particles can behave like waves, which can become particles depending on the situation. For example, when an observer is watching, the wave collapses to become a particle, and when it is left un- observed, the particle becomes a wave (Figure 1). “In the ambit of the creation-discovery view, it is usually stated that quantum measurements are not just observations, as they can provoke a real change of the state of the measured entity” (Sassoli de Bianchi, 2013: 1). As new informa- tion surfaces and becomes available from the environment, the probability distributions also can evolve (Baclawski, 2018). Peljko et al.’s (2016: 172) study noted the interrela- tionship between entrepreneurial curiosity and innovation, motivating “entrepreneurs to gather information about their business and innovativeness”. Observation can also be either invasive or non-inva- sive. That “it is always possible to observe the countless entities populating our reality without disturbing them, i.e., without influencing their state and evolution” (Sassoli de Bianchi, 2013: 2) in a non-invasive and non-intrusive way. “The observation of living entities, like when a hunt- er hides to observe a prey from afar, can possibly involve some very subtle levels of inevitable disturbance that could influence the behaviour of the living entity being ob- served” (Sassoli de Bianchi, 2013: 20) and in an invasive way that influences their state. In quantum theory terms, any independently existing physical system is situated in a definite state at every moment. “Intuitively, the state of the system is the totality of its observable properties, but the relation of this totality to individual observables is peculiar to quantum mechanics” (Shimony, 1963: 756). Figure 1: Illustrates the observer effect and the wave-particle duality 248 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers Even worse, the uncertainties in the system exist prior to and independent of any measurement, and the uncertain- ty principle is, therefore, more fundamental than the ob- server effect. So not only did you change the system being measured/observed, you can’t even tell how you changed the system being measured/observed, and you can’t avoid it! You can only accept the fact that you changed it (Cran- ford, 2021: 2571). We must consider the possible effects and changes the observation may produce when an opportunity is observed. With wave functions, re-conceptualising opportunities as artefacts open new dialogues and orientate future research. 2.5 Understanding uncertainty “Entrepreneurship is fundamentally action under uncertainty” (Foss & Klein, 2020: 369). Purposeful be- haviour under uncertainty is the fundamental assumption undergirding theories of entrepreneurial actions. Simply put, “entrepreneurs operate in uncertain environment” (Townsend et al., 2018: 659). Uncertainty is a persistent struggle for entrepreneurs, and sensemaking is crucial for their venture’s ongoing concern. Knight (1921) differen- tiated risk and uncertainty. Keynes (1921) discussed risks probabilistically. Knight and Keynes both drew the line between risks and uncertainty. Knight’s account of how an agent’s beliefs and confidence in uncertain events influ- ence their choices (Westgren & Holmes, 2021). Accord- ing to Knight, the risk is quantifiable uncertainty (Holton, 2004). Westgren and Holmes (2021) examined subjective probabilities and indeterminism to understand degrees of uncertainty. Uncertainties, in a nonequilibrium environ- ment, provide the contexts for opportunities to arise. Alert entrepreneurs perceive, act and profit from purposeful ac- tions. Khalil (1997: 27) drew the distinction: Two kinds of indeterminism, one arising from the knower’s limited skill of computation and the other from the phenomenon’s inherent uncertainty. The former kind of indeterminism, characterising market equilibrium dy- namics, is heuristically captured by chaos theory and, in economics, by Frank Knight’s notion of risk. The latter kind of indeterminism, expressing innovativeness, is anal- ogous to the laws of quantum mechanics and, in econom- ics, Knight’s notion of uncertainty. “Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is a milestone of the twentieth-century physics” (Atkinson & Peijnenburg, 2022), borne of the Copenhagen school 6 , lies on an epis- temological interpretation where the uncertainty is attrib- utable to the conjoined interactions between the subject and observer. The conjoined interactions generate a certain indeterminism, formulated as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle 7 (Busch et al., 2007). The uncertainty principle states that “it is impossible to specify a particle’s location and momentum simultaneously. As soon as the experi- menter finds out the particle’s location, the experimenter’s tool unpredictably influences the particle’s momentum, and vice versa” (Khalil, 1997: 29). “Heisenberg’s uncer- tainty principle is usually taken to express a limitation of operational possibilities imposed by quantum mechanics” (Busch et al., 2007: 1). According to Soros (2013: 316), “Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is subject to the laws of probability and statistics, the deep Knightian uncertainties of human affairs associated with the human uncertainty principle are not”. “Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle showed that the act of observation impact a quantum system” (Soros, 2013: 318). Khalil (1997: 29) explained the Schrödinger’s cat example: Erwin Schrödinger summarises quantum uncertainty with the famous metaphor of a cat placed in a box with a radioactive substance which can trigger at any moment the release of a lethal poison. In a Newtonian indeterministic world, one can state with certainty the chance (i.e., risk distribution) of whether the cat can be found dead upon opening the box in two hours. That is, in two hours, the cat can be either alive or dead with a certain probability distribution. In a quantum indeterministic world, howev- er, the cat can be in the potential state of being alive and dead. Thus, the uncertain state can be determined only through experience, one of which is the act of opening the box. This finding has led to the subjectivist Copenhagen interpretation that the act of opening the box affect in an uncontrollable manner whether the cat will be found alive or dead view. Quantum phenomena are not intuitive and do not obey the notion of locality familiar to everyday experiential per- ception. However, opportunity-as-artefact can be flexibly posited in a locality formed as an entrepreneur’s imagi- nation with possibilities. This is consistent with Ramo- glou and Gartner’s (2022: 7) view that “venture success is ultimately a matter of entrepreneurial imagination and effort”. McMullen (2022) proposed that entrepreneurial innovation can be an endogenous imagination act where the mental models interact in a process that generates an output. Metaphorically, an opportunity artefact is repre- 1 6 The Copenhagen interpretation is a set of views about quantum mechanics, principally attributed to Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. The earliest interpretations of quantum mechanics during the period of 1925–1927 (Paty, 1995). 7 Heisenberg uncertainty principle also known as the indeterminacy/ uncertainty principle states that the position and the velocity of an object cannot be simultaneously measure with any precision. The uncertainty principle asserts a fundamental limit on the accuracy with which an object’s physical quantity such as position and momentum can be predicted from initial conditions (Busch et al., 2007). 249 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers sented as a quantum particle, and if “a quantum particle is taken to exist independently of the observer, it must be conceived as existing as a coherent potential which occu- pies a locality in an uncertain way” (Khalil, 1997: 29). Ac- cording to Ramoglou (2021), there is no visual interaction of opportunity with the physical aspects of the world, and when “entrepreneurs talk about discovery or perception of opportunities, they are engaged in a language game of imagination” (Ramoglou, 2021: 8). The locality of the op- portunity, a socially constructed artefact, can be situated in the observer’s mind. Alvarez and Porac (2020: 739) claimed that “complexity is a function of the mind and not the world”. McMullen (2022) asserted that entrepreneurs create knowledge 8 that helps realise profit potential, but they do not create the profit potential itself. What is realis- tically observable is the abstracted information, such as the market trend, consumers’ habits, and technological devel- opment. Courtney et al. (2017) examined the signals and endorsements obtained from multiple information sources to mitigate information asymmetry 9 . “The multiple signal- ling factors and endorsements 10 interact to influence a pro- ject’s likelihood (of success)” (Courtney et al., 2017: 284, emphasis added). The assemblages of information from multiple sources form opportunity beliefs. Soros (2013: 314) further clarified: Risk is when there are multiple possible future states and the probabilities of those different future states occur- ring are known. Risk is well described by the laws of prob- ability and statistics. Knightian uncertainty occurs when the probabilities of future states, or even the nature of pos- sible future states is not known. When Mark Zuckerberg spoke of his vision of the metaverse and transformed his business to pivot into the metaverse, he imagined that the metaverse contains possi- bilities for alternative interactions between people (New- ton, 2021). He peered into the unknowable future with his ability to recognise and identifies: 1. the metaverse will be the successor to the mobile internet; 2. the spatial distance between people is compressed in the metaverse, and this spurs interaction; 3. the interactions are immersive and can unlock new experiences; 4. the immersive reality will change the way people interact and intermingle. “Technology that’s built around people and how we actually experience the world and interact with each oth- er. That’s what the metaverse is all about” (Zuckerberg, 2021). Despite the unknowable and uncertainty in today’s context, Mark Zuckerberg persists with his vision to trans- form social interaction through his platform and innova- tion. Opportunity-as-artefact is only meaningful when it stirs entrepreneurial actions. The action occurs in time, in- herently making it uncertain (Mises, 1949). “Thus, it seems that one cannot have opportunity without uncertainty, but because the human condition is characterised by the pas- sage of time, there will always be uncertainty, and there- fore, some form of opportunity” (McMullen et al., 2007: 15). Under “uncertainty-based theories entrepreneurs do not so much discover profit opportunities as create them, often through their organising efforts” (Alvarez & Barney, 2005: 788). According to Foss and Klein, “uncertainty is central to entrepreneurship and innovation yet absent from opportunity-based approaches” (Foss & Klein, 2020: 366). Opportunity-based approaches (Alvarez et al., 2013; Mole & Mole, 2010; Venkataraman et al., 2012) feature discov- ery and creation, but what does an entrepreneur discover or create? We argue that entrepreneurs discover information under uncertain conditions, strengthening their opportuni- ty artefact 11 . The opportunity artefact potentially motivates them to a specific action. Whether it is “price differentials 1 8 Knowledge and information are distinctively different. Knowledge refers to relevant and objective information gained through experience and learning. Knowledge is accrued from combining information and helps draw inferences to develop insights. Infor- mation refer to processed data that has been ascribed meaning through relational connections. Information informs and provides answers to problems. 9 Information asymmetry refers to imbalance of knowledge of relevant factors and details between negotiating parties (Bergh et al., 2019) where one party has more or better information than another. 10 Endorsements refer to third party’s expressed views and according to Courtney et al. (2017), third-party endorsements alleviate information gap as prior research has shown that these endorsements through interorganisational relationships serve as signal of quality. 11 Opportunity artefact, opportunity-as-artefact and opportunity belief are used interchangeably in this paper. Artefact refers to an object of interest that can be represented: an aspect of thing, a state of affairs, knowledge stock, information feed or material re- source, something observable in the environment that is of concern to the observer. Opportunity artefact, technically, is composed of Ramoglou’s (2021)opportunity ingredient which is the knowable part in the opportunity construct (market demand, competitive reactions, prevailing interest rate, etc.). Ramoglou (2021) explained that particular knowable ingredients do not make opportu- nities knowable because “the entirety of opportunity ingredients can never be knowable” (p. 2). Opportunity belief refers to the aggregated information abstracted from various sources. The aggregated information motivates and sustains actions. Opportunity belief is grounded with degrees of intentions that guide skilled actions. Fridland (2021) described intentions “as hierarchically organized, where intentions at higher or more abstract levels of description causally influence, structure, and organize intentions lower down in the intentional hierarchy. This kind of top-down causal influence would allow, and in some cases even require, the simultaneity of intentions at different levels of action specification” (p. 489). 250 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers (spatially or temporally)” (Foss & Klein, 2020: 368) or Burt’s (2004) structural holes, entrepreneurs interpret the information within the opportunity artefacts to create arbi- trage-able opportunities (Foss & Klein, 2020). The alert entrepreneurs scan and recognise these structural holes where the disequilibrium brings arbitrage opportunities. The entrepreneurs seize these opportunities before other actors who may be observers of the same opportunities. Observing the phenomenon impacts the phenomenon itself and necessarily changes it (Baclawski, 2018). This dise- quilibrium does not last long as all knowledge is effective- ly parameterised in multi-actor observations. The opportu- nities arising from the disequilibrium are discovered and exploited. The entrepreneurial discovery, in a way, causes markets to equilibrate. Alert entrepreneurs explore the prevailing social re- lationships and material resources in combinatorial ways to generate values and profits under genuine uncertainty (Foss & Klein, 2020). The disequilibrium, visibly ob- served in the chaotic environment, is constantly changing, with resources, opportunities and relationships dissolving and reforming. The “real world entrepreneurship consists primarily of choosing among combinations of heteroge- neous capital assets” (Foss & Klein, 2020: 370) to create possibilities from each combination. The creation involves combination and recombination, dissolving and reforming resources. “When emergence happens, something new and unexpected arises, with outcomes that cannot be predicted even knowing everything about the parts of the system” (Lichtenstein, 2014:1). McMullen (2022) argued that the world determines emergence 12 in an indeterminate way though resources are at entrepreneurs’ disposal. “The ori- gin of emergence is a potentiality” (Lichtenstein, 2014:5). Lichtenstein (2014) viewed the opportunity as emergent with potentiality and possibility. According to the discovery approach, opportunities are an outcome resulting from conditions and constraints in technology, markets and entrepreneurs. According to the creation approach, opportunities are an emergent pro- cess; a viable opportunity is one that becomes increasingly visible through entrepreneurial organising and enactment. An emergence perspective provides a unique integration by viewing opportunities as emergent that are and can be, enacted (Lichtenstein, 2014:7). Implicit in the emergence perspective is the emergence of potentialities and possibilities instead of an actual fixed state. Opportunity is more of becoming instead of being. 3 Discussion The act of discovering, creating and evaluating op- portunities requires information. “Many entrepreneurship scholars see risk, ambiguity, and uncertainty as different, though relatedly, informational contexts” (Alvarez & Bar- ney, 2019: 12). On quantum terms, the “quantum wave function has a pure information nature” (Haven & Khren- nikov, 2017: v). The act of observation of the opportunity artefact is complex. It invokes cognitive decision-making and call- for-action—any action arising impacts the interdepend- ence of events and stakeholders at multiple social levels. Entrepreneurs operate in a highly interdependent environ- ment where they form organised structures in which the parts and wholes are dynamically interdependent with be- wildering entangled complexities (Lawless, 2017). The interdependence of the interwoven parts cannot possibly be understood in its totality 13 . Opportunity artefact repre- sents all these interwoven and interlaced relationships and information encapsulated in the artefact. The Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment queries the counterintuitive quantum superposition of macroscopic objects. Here, each cat represents an opportunity artefact (quasi-classical object) which in turn is represented by a wave function. As a natural extension, several cats (oppor- tunity artefacts) “can be prepared into coherent quantum superposition states, which is known as multipartite cat states demonstrating quantum entanglement among mac- roscopically distinct objects” (Wang et al., 2022: 1). This superposition state (or mixed state), is where the oppor- tunity artefact simultaneously occupies several possible states. “In Schrödinger’s thought experiment, a cat would be in a peculiar mixture of being dead and alive” (Wang et al., 2022: 1). Thus, the “wave function incorporates everything there is to know about a particle, summing up its range of all possible positions and movements” (Yam, 1997: 124). Metaphorically, the wave function represents all the possibilities in the artefact. The act of observation necessarily changes the state to reveal the reality – either dead or alive. The action causes the wave function to col- lapse on observation where only one reality persists. Fig- ure 2 clarifies this point – the revelation of the cat’s state of being alive or dead occurs on observation. The wave function is presented like a three-dimensional Gaussian bell curve that maintains its shape in a mixed state of being 1 12 Here, “the world” refers to the market with its unpredictability such as customers’ demands and market trends. When entre- preneurs act in response to what they see of the world (their worldview), their entrepreneurial action is based on an opportunity belief and any emergence (such as successful or not) by turning out to be an actual opportunity for profit is uncertain. Hence, the emergence is a potentiality acting out. 13 This description corresponds to Gell-Mann’s idea of the entire fine-grained descriptions is not knowable because of observers’ limited power of observation, cognitive abilities and computations. Ramoglou’s (2021) view is consistent -that particular knowable ingredients do not make opportunities knowable because “the entirety of opportunity ingredients can never be knowable” (p. 2). 251 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers dead or alive until observation (or action) is made, where the wave function collapses to an emergent reality. The experiment is not constructed on any quantum mechanical devices, but the thought experiment adequate- ly demonstrates the variety of subjective interpretations against a backdrop of possibilities. The paradox is this- when the cat is in the sealed container with a radioactive substance (within an hour, the radioactive atom has an even chance of decaying), the decay will trigger a hammer that would smash the vial containing the cyanide. The cat is situated in a mixed state of being either alive or dead, half alive, or near death. The outcome is uncertain. When the box is sealed, it is in a mixed state with many possi- bilities. The act of opening the box immediately reveals the actual state – the earlier mixed state of possibilities in- stantly collapses into a pure state: alive or dead. The act of observation eliminates the notion of superpositions (other possibilities), and a particular state prevails to become a reality. Figure 2: The collapse of wave function phenomenon.Illustration credit attribution to Andrew Friedman, http://afriedman.org/AndysWebPage/BSJ/CopenhagenManyWorlds.html 3.1 Rise and collapse of wave functions The expression of uncertainty as potential states in a probability distribution is also known as Schrödinger’s wave function (Khalil, 1997). The wave functions repre- sent the range of possibilities in the opportunities, includ- ing the observer’s interpretation and the interactions and entangled superposition at the observation point. Murphy summarises and draws the following conclusions (Mur- phy, 2021: 14): - The social structure of the market is invisible and can be represented when considering all possible outcomes with its wave-like properties. - Any interactions with ‘the market’ or any observation of market interaction, the market wave ‘collapses’ – just as would any photon being observed. Hence, when meas- uring with precise methodologies, there is no ‘market’ to see, as it is a social construct that includes buyer, seller, commodity, et cetera. - Through the interactivities between markets (social structures) and the stakeholders (buyers, sellers, etc.), with the observer scanning for opportunities, market opportu- nities are constantly arising and collapsing because of the constant intra-activity of actors and structures. - The market wave function interferes with other social wave functions, and the interaction effects may be con- structive or destructive. - The market and all the other social structures and the actors (all should be understood in terms of their social wave functions) can become entangled and conjoined one way or another. In such a case of entanglement, a signif- icant change in the state of the market can have nonlocal effects on those actors with which it is entangled. Using this quantum approach, this paper re-concep- tualises opportunity as an artefact with possibilities ex- pressed as a wave with a probability distribution. The entanglement and interference with other social structures like competitors, imitators, suppliers, distributors, and 252 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers investors contribute to the possible state actualising. The prevailed wave function is transformed into a certitude ex- pressed in risk distribution (Khalil, 1997). The prevailed wave function is actualised into the observed reality from the earlier state of uncertainty. The rise and fall of the wave functions depend on the flow of abstracted information de- rived from relatively autonomous or independent sub-to- talities or Ramoglou’s opportunity ingredients. This more profound type of uncertainty can be mathematically rep- resented by the tools of quantum probability theory. Such information can be modelled with quantum probability us- ing superposition and entanglement of belief states (Haven & Khrennikov, 2017). The observable spike represents a highly likely actualisable opportunity. The rise-to-a-spike is a signal. “The observability of that opportunity in terms of its signal intensity, visibility, frequency, strength and clarity become critical to tilt the balance in favour of pur- poseful actions. Strong signals are more likely to compel entrepreneurs to enact with such consuming obsession and burning desire to actualise the end goal” (Leong, 2021: 2150021-12). The desire to actualise the end goal compels entrepreneurs to act to shift the trajectory from possible to actual over time. 3.2 Implications of an action framework framed as a wave function With entrepreneurial action, the mixed state of pos- sibilities collapses into a pure state (either of success or failure); the process of discovery/creation (pre-observa- tion stage) and evaluation situates the entrepreneur in a mixed state of possibilities. Observing Schrödinger’s cat (opportunity artefact), one state prevails among the mixed possibilities. The mixed state holds that the wave func- tion describes all possibilities based on the entrepreneurs’ knowledge/access to information and socio-material re- sources. The wave function becomes complex when en- coded with much information (Yam, 1997). This wave function contains all the information of a system available to the entrepreneurs, leading to their asymmetric beliefs (Mises, 1949) and hence their choice of actions. Their actions are determined by their prior knowledge and mo- tivation to act. Not all would act on the same knowledge with equal motivation and conviction. Those who act en- trepreneurially are presupposed to possess a clearer vision of the future than those who have not acted. The objective reality “is thought to exist in which a market opportunity is there for the taking, but only for those who possess the qualities necessary to discover and exploit it. Thus, entre- preneurial action is seen as something all would engage in if they knew what to do, but, owing to epistemological differences, only some people (the entrepreneurs) “know” what to do” (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006: 137). Recognizing an opportunity is similar to looking at the box with Schrödinger’s cat (opportunity-as-artefact). A hypothetical wave function emerges (Figure 2) with dif- ferent possibilities. The act of observation changes the phenomenon being observed. The opportunity-as-artefact is hypothetically represented as a wave function contain- ing all the possibilities. McMullen and Shepherd (2006: 137) qualify these bell curves as hypothetical “because in a natural context, only one point of an individual’s response curve is observable”. This one point of the response curve refers to the spike seen in Figure 2. Only the act of open- ing the box will reveal the actual state. When opportunity-as-artefact is observed, the entre- preneurs rely on their prior knowledge to determine if the opportunity is exploitable. The lure of the opportunity will draw the entrepreneurs in the direction of the oppor- tunity in a ‘run-and-tumble’ way without a firm strategy. The opportunity-as-artefact will change as new informa- tion becomes available and the environment changes. As they tumble along the venture pathway, they have to make sense of the uncertainty by understanding the “technolog- ical insights, latitude for strategic change, business model boundaries and local identity embeddedness” (Penttilä et al., 2020: 209). At this point, the entrepreneurs need to grapple with the local focal network including the broad- er surrounding environment” (Penttilä et al., 2020) and other heterogeneous stakeholders (competitors, imitators, upstream suppliers, downstream distributors, financiers, bankers, etc.) that may be entangled or may interfere with the entrepreneurial process. A critical point emerges at this stage. When evaluated, the opportunity presents sufficient stimulation for the entrepreneurs to act. If the answer is no, entrepreneurial action as an outcome is improbable be- cause of the unwillingness of the entrepreneurs to bear un- certainty because of the amount of perceived uncertainty (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006). “In the ambit of the creation-discovery view, it is usually stated that quantum measurements are not just observations, as they can provoke a real change of the state of the measured entity” (Sassoli de Bianchi, 2013: 1). The evaluation stage under action-specific uncertain- ty is a particular measurement by the entrepreneurs that relate to the “intrinsic (stable) properties of the observed entity, or about relational (ephemeral) properties between the observer and observed entities; also, they can be about intermediate properties, neither purely classical, nor pure- ly quantum” (Sassoli de Bianchi, 2013: 1). The intrinsic properties of the observed entity (opportunity-as-artefact) refer to the amount of perceived uncertainty or asymmetric information embedded in it. The manifold interpretations of the opportunity-as-artefact are reflected in the informa- tion’s intensity, strength, and clarity (Leong, 2021). Those “who do not have the necessary knowledge, information and motivation will not believe that the change represents an opportunity will no longer attend to it” (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006: 141). 253 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers “Opportunities? They are all around us … There is power lying latent everywhere waiting for the observant eye to discover it” (Marden, 2015: 276). Leong (2021: 2150021-2) explains that “opportunities can be latent, where the information may not be inter- preted to a point where it invokes response and action”. Metaphorically, these are like Schrödinger’s cat boxes all around us, each with its range of latent potentials. The key is to open these boxes. The observation, as an action, changes the phenomena leading to a quantum outcome. “The future offers many potentialities, which we define as alternative states and possible outcomes that could occur but have not yet occurred because to be actualised, they require the enactment of individual, social, and environ- mental events that are often serendipitous” (Lord et al., 2015: 264). By exploring and observing opportunity-as-ar- tefact as a new physical imaginary, the quantum interpre- tation invites entrepreneurship scholars to re-conceptual- ise how tacit assumptions on entrepreneurial opportunities (Berglund & Korsgaard, 2017; Eckhardt & Shane, 2003; McKelvie et al., 2020; Sarason et al., 2006b; Shane, 2003; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000), entrepreneurial process (Dimov, 2011; Mcmullen & Dimov, 2013) limit our ability to understand the entrepreneurial practices and realities. The observer effect concludes that an observer chang- es the object (opportunity as an artefact) as they observe (Figure 3). Furthermore, it suggests that the impact on the changing opportunity artefact (from other observers) changes its quantum state due to other heterogeneous agents’ simultaneous observations. Our approach and methodology centre on this theory of evolving change in the opportunity-quantum artefact (its potentiality increas- ing or decreasing depending on the degree of exploitation by others), changing perceptions and subsequent interac- tions through the power of other external observations. Figure 3: Shows opportunity-as-artefact being a wave-particle duality 3.3 Implications for theory and practice Quantum physics states that nothing that is observed is unaffected by the observer (Sassoli de Bianchi, 2013). This statement holds an enormous and powerful insight into entrepreneurial practice. It means that subject to the in- terpretation of entrepreneurs, opportunity-as-artefacts can take many forms. The opportunity appears in varied forms because entrepreneurs create different futures from what they observe based on their understanding and weightage of uncertainty, risks and returns. This implies that individ- ual agents see a different reality (based on prior knowledge and experience and their understanding of the contextual information). Each creates a different future using the re- sources and network at hand. When entrepreneurs observe an opportunity, the observer effect categorically states that observing the phenomenon necessarily changes it. The in- spiration for the new idea in envisaging the opportunity is endogenous to the entrepreneurs. McMullen (2022: 49) argues that this “springs from the marriage of situational need and personal creativity such that a perceived ingenui- ty gap sparks ingenuity and the innovative reconfiguration of resources used in production”. Innovation is possible when the knowledge is “created through experimentation relying on resources capable of being regenerated by natu- ral capital” (McMullen, 2022: 49). Without knowledge and resources and, most critically, the will to act, nothing tran- spires, and possibilities are non-existent. With interactions 254 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers and combinations, possibilities arise. With entrepreneurial action, the trajectory shifts from possible to probable and actual over time. The actuality is derived from a range of possibilities, but only one reality emerges where the rest collapse. “Opportunity should be viewed as an artefact with perceived potentialities” (Leong, 2021: 2150021-1). By developing a new quantum perspective on opportu- nity, opportunistic outcomes are constantly collapsing, and only one actuality will emerge in reality. The re-concep- tualisation of opportunity as a quantum wave function can provide a broad framework to understand opportunities and entrepreneurship. The abstract wave functions are constantly rising and collapsing as entrepreneurs interact with the environment, abstracting, sensemaking and enacting to capitalise on the opportunities. Enactment with an entrepreneurial intensity, defined by Morris, refers to a high degree of strength, force or energy (Morris, 1998) of varying degrees and amounts that may not always end in successfully exploiting the op- portunities. The observation effect on opportunity-as-ar- tefact is integrally linked to the final act- entrepreneurial action. Without action, the outcome is suspended in an uncertain quantum state. In Schrödinger’s cat example, the uncertain state can be determined by opening the box. This finding led to the subjectivist Copenhagen interpreta- tion that opening the box affects the uncertainty of wheth- er the cat will be found alive or dead. “Entrepreneurship requires action” (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006: 132). We argue that this quantum-like model provides a promising perspective to explain entrepreneurial phenomena. It can extend scholarly understanding from observation, recogni- tion and evaluation of the opportunity to the final act- en- trepreneurial action. The emerging future comes from interacting artefacts and entities (opportunity, events, heterogeneous actors in the entrepreneurial ecosystem, etc.). The interaction- al effects – interfering and entangling generate possibili- ties. Entrepreneurs act on the indeterminate future based on their assessment of the probabilistic situations, relying on their experience and understanding of the contextual information derived from other sources, including the en- vironment. Lichtenstein’s (2020) generative emergence describes how new entities are created and how new order comes from change and transformation. Lichtenstein’s generative emergence explains the creation phenomenon at all inter- action levels. Quantum science describes the complex interactions, entanglements and interferences of the wave functions under such uncertainties; from a different per- spective presented by the classical interpretation. The em- beddedness of potentiality and the many-possibilities sce- narios at each junction, boundary or nexus of interactions, including the individual-opportunity nexus (Shane, 2003), hold great promise in entrepreneurship research. Adopt- ing the metaphors and methods of the quantum theory has refreshingly new perspectives for entrepreneurial studies. What matters for the entrepreneur is more than the ac- tive role as the observer; the action (taking a conscious bet on a future with many possibilities of other futures) spins off a new trajectory. According to quantum physics, the observer’s relationship with the entrepreneurial event is quantised because of the subsequent action, compared to the classical observer (non-entrepreneur), who is merely a spectator. 4 Conclusion Discussing entrepreneurship with references to quan- tum theory is new. Quantum theory is abstract, but it con- tributes to understanding entrepreneurial practices and entrepreneurs taking chances (playing with dice). It offers tangible suggestions that all things are implicated. An ac- tion by a heterogeneous agent, change in the context of material resources or change in technological solutions impact the shape of the wave function instantaneously, raising our awareness that a web of interdependent and in- terrelated connections constructs the universe around us. Quantum-like descriptions and metaphorical aspects can present an alternative representation of the opportunity construct and paradigm. Finally, re-conceptualising op- portunity as an artefact with quantum potential is a new approach to overcoming the profound theoretical puzzle and definitional clumsiness of opportunity. By broadening the scope, opportunity straddles between possibilities due to contextual changes (environment, technology, market, etc.). The mere act of observation changes it. The other possible wave functions collapse to one reality the entre- preneur may pursue if it contains sufficient information (and potentialities) to excite and trigger entrepreneurial action. McMullen and Shepherd (2006) noted that the mo- tivation to act with knowledge must be considered con- comitantly when acting entrepreneurially. Without taking action, like opening the box to see the cat, the opportunity artefact remains in a suspended state. Ramoglou & Mc- Mullen (2022: 29) argued: … what can happen is up to the world – the entrepre- neur has no say. But whether what can happen will ac- tually happen is up to the agent – the world has no say. Put differently: whether one can achieve A by doing B is determined by the world. But whether, when, or how such possibilities will actualize is entirely a matter of entrepre- neurial choice and work. Quantum mechanics phenomena are deeply myste- rious. Its weirdness is hard to understand as it involves unseen forces with significant uncertainties and hidden po- tentialities. Whatever comes out of it depends on the action taken. Whatever comes out of it comes in response to the entrepreneur’s observation. When we describe opportuni- ty in whatever form, it should be probabilistically denoted 255 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers since complexly interacting factors determine emergent events, and probabilistic thinking help identify the most likely outcomes. Literature Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2005). How Do Entrepre- neurs Organize Firms Under Conditions of Uncertain- ty? Journal of Management, 31(5), 776–793. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279486 Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and cre- ation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.4 Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B., & Anderson, P. (2013). Forming and exploiting opportunities: The implica- tions of discovery and creation processes for entre- preneurial and organizational research. Organization Science, 24(1), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1287/ orsc.1110.0727 Alvarez, S. A., & Porac, J. (2020). Imagination, Indeter- minacy, and Managerial Choice at the Limit of Knowl- edge. Academy of Management Review, 45(4), 735– 744. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2020.0366 Alvarez, S., & Barney, J. B. (2019). Has the Concept of Opportunities Been Fruitful in the Field of Entrepre- neurship? Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2018.0014 Atkinson, D., & Peijnenburg, J. (2022). How Certain is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle? HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the Histo- ry of Philosophy of Science, 12(1), 1–21. https://doi. org/10.1086/716930 Baclawski, K. (2018). The Observer Effect. 2018 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management (CogSIMA), 83–89. https:// doi.org/10.1109/COGSIMA.2018.8423983 Bergh, D. D., Ketchen, D. J., Orlandi, I., Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., & Boyd, B. K. (2019). Information Asymmetry in Management Research: Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities. Journal of Management, 45(1), 122–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318798026 Berglund, H., Bousfiha, M., & Mansoori, Y . (2020). Op- portunities as Artifacts and Entrepreneurship as De- sign. Academy of Management Review, 45(4), 825– 846. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0285 Berglund, H., & Korsgaard, S. (2017). Opportunities, Time, and Mechanisms in Entrepreneurship: On the Practical Irrelevance of Propensities. Academy of Management Review, 42(4), 730–733. https://doi. org/10.5465/amr.2016.0168 Burt, R. S. (2021). Structural holes capstone, cautions, and enthusiasms in Personal networks: Classic readings and new directions in egocentric analysis. In Cam- bridge University Press. Burt, Ronald S. (2004). Structural Holes and Good Ide- as. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787 Busch, P., Heinonen, T., & Lahti, P. (2007). Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Physics Reports, 452(6), 155– 176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2007.05.006 Couder, Y ., & Fort, E. (2012). Probabilities and trajec- tories in a classical wave-particle duality. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 361, 012001. https://doi. org/10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012001 Courtney, C., Dutta, S., & Li, Y . (2017). Resolving In- formation Asymmetry: Signaling, Endorsement, and Crowdfunding Success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2), 265–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/ etap.12267 Cranford, S. (2021). Reducing the Editorial Observ- er Effect. Matter, 4(8), 2571–2573. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.matt.2021.07.011 Davidsson, P. (2003). The domain of entrepreneurship re- search: Some suggestions. In Cognitive Approaches to Entrepreneurship Research (Advances in Entrepre- neurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Vol. 6) (pp. 315–372). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bing- ley. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1074-7540(03)06010-0 Davidsson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: A re-conceptualization. Journal of Business V enturing, 30(5), 674–695. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.01.002 Davidsson, P. (2017). Reflections on misgivings about “dismantling” the opportunity construct. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 7, 65–67. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2017.03.004 Davidsson, P. (2021). Ditching Discovery-Creation for Unified Venture Creation Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 104225872110308. https://doi. org/10.1177/10422587211030870 Dimov, D. (2011). Grappling With the Unbearable Elu- siveness of Entrepreneurial Opportunities. Entrepre- neurship: Theory and Practice, 35(1), 57–81. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00423.x Dimov, D. (2020). Opportunities, Language, and Time. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), 333– 351. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0135 Dulupçu M, & M., O. (2000). Towards Quantum Econom- ic Development: Transcending Boundaries. Ankara SBF Dergisi, 55(3), 29-53. Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333– 349. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630302900304 Foss, N. J., & Klein, P. G. (2020). Entrepreneurial Oppor- tunities: Who Needs Them? Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), 366–377. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amp.2017.0181 Fridland, E. (2021). Intention at the Interface. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 12(3), 481–505. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s13164-019-00452-x 256 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers Gartner, W. B. (1988). “Who Is an Entrepre- neur?” Is the Wrong Question. American Jour- nal of Small Business, 12(4), 11–32. https://doi. org/10.1177/104225878801200401 Haven, E., & Khrennikov, A. (2017). The Palgrave hand- book of quantum models in social science. London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Heidi M. Neck, Greene, P. G., & Brush, C. G. (2014). Prac- tice-based entrepreneurship education using actionable theory. In Annals of Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy – 2014 (pp. 3–20). Edward Elgar Publish- ing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783471454.00008 Holton, G. A. (2004). Defining Risk. Financial Analysts Journal, 60(6), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v60. n6.2669 Jeraj, M. (2014). The Relationship between Optimism, Pre-Entrepreneurial Curiosity and Entrepreneurial Curiosity. Organizacija, 47(3), 199–209. https://doi. org/10.2478/orga-2014-0018 Keynes, J. M. (1921). A Treatise on Probability. Macmil- lan and Company, Limited. Khalil, E. L. (1997). Chaos Theory Versus Heisenberg’s Uncertainty: Risk, Uncertainty and Economic Theory. The American Economist, 41(2), 27–40. https://doi. org/10.1177/056943459704100204 Kirzner, I, . (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process. An Austrian Approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35: 60-85. Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Kirzner I.M. (1980). Perception, Opportunity and Profit. Studies in the Theory of Entrepreneurship. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Knight, F, . (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. . New York: Augustus Kelley. Koçaslan, G. (2014). Quantum Interpretation to Deci- sion Making Under Risk: The Observer Effect In Al- lais Paradox. NeuroQuantology, 12(3). https://doi. org/10.14704/nq.2014.12.3.776 Koppl, R., & Minniti, M. (2003). Market Processes and Entrepreneurial Studies. In Handbook of Entrepre- neurship Research (pp. 81–102). Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24519-7_5 Lawless, W. F. (2017). The entangled nature of interde- pendence. Bistability, irreproducibility and uncertain- ty. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 78, 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2016.11.001 Leong, D. (2021). Entrepreneurial Energy in a Far-From-Equilibrium Opportunity Driving Entrepre- neurial Actions. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Business and Economics, 9(1), 1–31. http://www.scientificia. com/index.php/JEBE/article/view/143 Leong, D. (2021). Re-Contextualizing Opportunity as Ar- tifact Signalling for Entrepreneurial Action. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 2150021. https:// doi.org/10.1142/S1084946721500217 Lichtenstein, B. (2020). Generative Emergence: Re- search and Praxis for Social Innovation. In Ox- ford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. Ox- ford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ acrefore/9780190236557.013.735 Lichtenstein, B. B. (2014). Generative emergence: A new discipline of organizational, entrepreneurial and social innovation. OUP Us. Liubertė, I., & Dimov, D. (2021). “One tiny drop chang- es everything”: Constructing opportunity with words. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 15, e00242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2021.e00242 Lord, R. G., Dinh, J. E., & Hoffman, E. L. (2015). A quan- tum approach to time and organizational change. Acad- emy of Management Review, 40(2), 263–290. https:// doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0273 McKelvie, A., Wiklund, J., McMullen, J. S., & Palubin- skas, A. P. (2020). A dynamic model of entrepreneur- ial opportunity: Integrating kirzner’s and mises’s ap- proaches to entrepreneurial action. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 23(3–4), 499–541. https://doi. org/10.35297/qjae.010078 McMullen, J. S. (2022). Real Growth Through Entre- preneurial Resourcefulness: Insights on the Entropy Problem from Andy Weir’s The Martian. Acade- my of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amr.2021.0341 Mcmullen, J. S., & Dimov, D. (2013). Time and the en- trepreneurial journey: The problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1481–1512. https://doi. org/10.1111/joms.12049 McMullen, J. S., Plummer, L. A., & Acs, Z. J. (2007). What is an Entrepreneurial Opportunity? Small Business Economics, 28(4), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11187-006-9040-z McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006a). Entrepre- neurial action and the role of uncertainty in the the- ory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152. https://doi.org/10.5465/ AMR.2006.19379628 McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006b). Entrepre- neurial Action And The Role Of Uncertainty In The Theory Of The Entrepreneur. Academy of Manage- ment Review, 31(1), 132–152. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amr.2006.19379628 Mises, Ludwig V on. (1949). Human action: A treatise on economics (4th revised ed.). In San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes. Mole, K. F., & Mole, M. (2010). Entrepreneurship as the structuration of individual and opportunity: A re- sponse using a critical realist perspective. Comment on Sarason, Dean and Dillard. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(2), 230–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusvent.2008.06.002 257 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers Monroe, C., Meekhof, D. M., King, B. E., & Wineland, D. J. (1996). A “Schrödinger Cat” Superposition State of an Atom. Science, 272(5265), 1131–1136. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.272.5265.1131 Morris, M. H. (1998). Entrepreneurial intensity: Sustaina- ble advantages for individuals, organizations, and so- cieties. Greenwood Publishing Group. Murphy, M. (2021). Markets are constantly collapsing: Reconceptualizing ‘the market’ as a quantum social wave function. Competition & Change, 25(5), 561– 579. https://doi.org/10.1177/1024529420987825 Newton, C. (2021). MARK IN THE METAVERSE Facebook’s CEO on why the social network is be- coming ‘a metaverse company.’ https://www. theverge.com/22588022/mark-zuckerberg-face- book-ceo-metaverse-interview Orison Swett Marden. (2015). ORISON SWETT MARDEN Premium Collection - Wisdom & Empowerment Series (18 Books in One Volume). 2404. Paty, M. (1995). The nature of Einstein’s objections to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 25(1), 183–204. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF02054665 Peljko, Ž., Jeraj, M., Săvoiu, G., & Marič, M. (2016). An Empirical Study of the Relationship between Entrepre- neurial Curiosity and Innovativeness. Organizacija, 49(3), 172–182. https://doi.org/10.1515/orga-2016- 0016 Penttilä, K., Ravald, A., Dahl, J., & Björk, P. (2020). Man- agerial sensemaking in a transforming business eco- system: Conditioning forces, moderating frames, and strategizing options. Industrial Marketing Manage- ment, 91, 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmar- man.2020.09.008 Ramoglou, S, ., & Tsang, E, . (2015). A Realist Perspective of Entrepreneurship: Opportunities as Propensities. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 410–434. . Ramoglou, S. (2021). Knowable opportunities in an un- knowable future? On the epistemological paradox- es of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(2), 106090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusvent.2020.106090 Ramoglou, S., & Gartner, W. B. (2022). A Historical Inter- vention in the “Opportunity Wars”: Forgotten Schol- arship, the Discovery/Creation Disruption, and Mov- ing Forward by Looking Backward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 104225872110693. https://doi. org/10.1177/10422587211069310 Ramoglou, S., & McMullen, J. S. (2022). “What is an Op- portunity?”: from Theoretical Mystification to Every- day Understanding. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2020.0335 Ramoglou, S., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2016). A realist perspec- tive of entrepreneurship: Opportunities as propensities. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 410–434. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0281 Ramoglou, S., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2017a). Accepting the unknowables of entrepreneurship and overcoming philosophical obstacles to scientific progress. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 8(972), 71–77. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2017.07.001 Ramoglou, S., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2017b). In Defense of Common Sense in Entrepreneurship Theory: Beyond Philosophical Extremities and Linguistic Abuses. Academy of Management Review, 42(4), 736–744. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0169 Sarason, Y ., Dean, T., & Dillard, J. F. (2006). Entrepre- neurship as the nexus of individual and opportuni- ty: A structuration view. Journal of Business Ven- turing, 21(3), 286–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusvent.2005.02.007 Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and Effectuation: To- ward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency. Academy of Manage- ment Review, 26(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amr.2001.4378020 Sarasvathy, S. D. (2009). Effectuation: Elements of entre- preneurial expertise. Edward Elgar Publishing. Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2013). The Observer Effect. Foundations of Science, 18(2), 213–243. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10699-012-9298-3 Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus. A General Theo- ry Of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-Opportunity Nexus, 1–327. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781007990 Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of En- trepreneurship as a Field of Research. In Source: The Academy of Management Review (V ol. 25, Issue 1). Shepherd, D. A., Wiklund, J., & Dimov, D. (2021). En- visioning Entrepreneurship’s Future: Introducing Me-Search and Research Agendas. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(5), 955–966. https://doi. org/10.1177/10422587211026872 Shimony, A. (1963). Role of the Observer in Quantum Theory. American Journal of Physics, 31(10), 755– 773. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1969073 Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Shook, C. L., & Ireland, R. D. (2010). The Concept of “Opportunity” in Entrepre- neurship Research: Past Accomplishments and Future Challenges. Journal of Management, 36(1), 40–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309342746 Soros, G. (2013). Fallibility, reflexivity, and the human uncertainty principle. Journal of Economic Method- ology, 20(4), 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501 78X.2013.859415 Thompson, W. C. (2016). Observer Effects. A Guide to Fo- rensic DNA Profiling, 171–173. Townsend, D. M., Hunt, R. A., McMullen, J. S., & Saras- vathy, S. D. (2018). Uncertainty, knowledge problems, and entrepreneurial action. Academy of Management 258 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers Annals, 12(2), 659–687. https://doi.org/10.5465/an- nals.2016.0109 Venkataraman, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., & Forster, W. R. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR Decade Award: Whither the Promise? Moving Forward with Entrepreneurship As a Science of the Artificial. Acad- emy of Management Review, 37(1), 21–33. https://doi. org/10.5465/amr.2011.0079 V on Mises, L. (1949). Human Action: a Treatise on Eco- nomics. https://doi.org/10.2307/2605641 Walker, G., Kogut, B., & Shan, W. (1997). Social Capital, Structural Holes and the Formation of an Industry Net- work. Organization Science, 8(2), 109–125. https:// doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.2.109 Wang, Z., Bao, Z., Wu, Y ., Li, Y ., Cai, W., Wang, W., Ma, Y ., Cai, T., Han, X., Wang, J., Song, Y ., Sun, L., Zhang, H., & Duan, L. (2022). A flying Schrödinger’s cat in multipartite entangled states. Science Advances, 8(10). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abn1778 Westgren, R. E., & Holmes, T. L. (2021). Entrepreneur- ial Beliefs and Agency under Knightian Uncertainty. Philosophy of Management. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40926-021-00183-z Wiseman, H. M. (1996). Quantum trajectories and quan- tum measurement theory. Quantum and Semiclassical Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B, 8(1), 205. Yam, P. (1997). Bringing Schrödinger’s Cat to Life. Scien- tific American, 276(6), 124–129. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/24993789 Zhang, C., Wang, G., & Ying, M. (2007). Discrimination between pure states and mixed states. Physical Review A, 75(6), 062306. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRe- vA.75.062306 Zuckerberg, M. (2021). Connect 2021 Keynote: Our Vi- sion for the Metaverse. https://epublications.marque- tte.edu/zuckerberg_files_transcripts/1460 David Leong, Ph.D., is an entrepreneurship theorist with more than two and a half decades of experience as an entrepreneur. He started his entrepreneurial ventures early, soon after graduating from the National University of Singapore in 1994 with a Bachelor of Business Administration degree. He has founded at least fifteen ventures spanning corporate finance, business and marketing consultancy, technology solutions, asset management to human resources (HR). He is widely regarded as an expert resource and a leader in the business field. In addition, local media, such as The Straits Times, Business Times, Lianhe Zaobao, and Channel News Asia, often seek his views on economics, politics and HR issues. He has a PhD from Charisma University. His research is in entrepreneurship. His other research interest is the Chinese Yijing (Book of Changes). He draws the relatedness of Yijing with modern science, particularly quantum physics. He is the author of several scientific and professional articles, as well as chapters in books. He also published a book “Uncertainty, Timing and Luck on Quantum Terms in Entrepreneurship”. ORCID: 0000-0002-9440-3606. Probabilistična interpretacija učinka opazovalca na podjetniško priložnost Ozadje: V kvantni mehaniki učinek opazovalca pomeni, da opazovanje nekega pojavale-tega spremeni. Naša raziskava raziskuje verjetnostno interpretacijo podjetniške priložnosti in pojasnjuje učinek opazovalca, ki se odraža v Schrödingerjevem miselnem eksperimentu z mačko v škatli. Ta pristop obravnava priložnost kot koncept »mož- nosti«, ki jo na novo interpretira z vidika več opazovalcev in ključnega pomena ukrepanja, ki bi povzročilo kolaps valovne funkcije v nastajajočo resničnost. Študija raz,rešuje razrešiti epistemološki paradoks in vojno 'priložnosti' s ponovnim kontekstualiziranjem priložnosti kot artefakta in postavitvijo »vala verjetnosti« z vrsto možnosti, dokler pozorni podjetniki ne začno konkretno ukrepati. Metoda: Naša konceptualna študija se opira na pregled literature kot raziskovalno metodologijo, pri čemer uporablja sklepanje po analogiji za razvoj teorije in metafore za teoretiziranje. Rezultati: Študija krepi epistemološko osnovo, osredotočeno na možnost in verjetnost (ponazorjeno z valovno funk - cijo), da izostri definicijo priložnosti in teorije dejanj. Učinek opazovalca v priložnosti je v premalo raziskan akademski podjetniški literaturi. Ta študija prikazuje, kako učinek opazovalca vpliva na razvijajoče se stanje priložnosti. Na priložnost vplivajo drugi opazovalci in podjetnikova domišljija, družbena konstrukcija in trud. Vsak vključen agent se povezuje in sodeluje, da ustvari možnosti in priložnosti. Medsebojni odnosi in soodvisnost so zapleteni, kar povzroča superpozicijo z mešanim stanjem z veliko možnostmi. Zaključki: Prispevek naše raziskave je večplasten tako na teoretični kot praktični ravni. Predstavlja kvantnemu model, kjer je 'neukrepana' priložnost v superpoziciji (hkrati se pojavi več možnosti, dokler ni ena uveljavljena), pri čemer razširja pogled Ramoglouja in Tsanga (2016) na nagnjenost. Interakcijski učinki – vmešavanje in zapletanje med agenti, ki opazujejo isto priložnost, ustvarjajo možnosti. Stanja potenciala in številnih možnosti v artefaktu pri - ložnosti veliko obetajo v podjetniških raziskavah. Ključne besede: Učinek opazovalca, Kvantna mehanika, Kvantna teorija, Valovni delec, Priložnost, Podjetništvo