The philosophy of physics is now an important branch of academic philosophy. Philosophers of physics, who usually have a background in both disciplines, address the kind of questions that any physicist interested in understanding the conceptual foundations of the subject would deem important. These might include: What is four-dimensional Min-kowski space-time, and how did the advent of relativity affect Newtonian views of absolute space and time? Are the standard distributions in statistical physics a measure of objective chance or a lack of information about physical processes? Is there a measurement problem in quantum theory?
The philosophy of physics is now an important branch of academic philosophy. Philosophers of physics, who usually have a background in both disciplines, address the kind of questions that any physicist interested in understanding the conceptual foundations of the subject would deem important. These might include: What is four-dimensional Min-kowski space-time, and how did the advent of relativity affect Newtonian views of absolute space and time? Are the standard distributions in statistical physics a measure of objective chance or a lack of information about physical processes? Is there a measurement problem in quantum theory?
There are several (general) philosophy of physics textbooks on the market.1 An
obvious question to ask at the outset then is: Why another one? In his “Some
Philosophical Aspects of Particle Physics”, Michael Redhead bemoans the common practice of philosophers of science of dealing with examples “which are no
longer of current research interest in science” ((1980), p. 279). This practice is
still common even among many philosophers of physics, and, for the most part,
the available textbooks continue to engage in this practice. Generally, one finds a
little spacetime, a little statistical mechanics, and a little quantum theory. Now,
these are of course the ‘pillars’ of modern physics, so it is what we should expect
to be covered in any textbook on the philosophy of physics worth its salt (and,
indeed, they are well represented in this book). However, the issues that are
dealt with are usually very old fashioned and very limited in scope: ‘spacetime’
means ‘the twins paradox’ (and possibly conventionalism); ‘statistical mechanics’
means ‘time asymmetry’; and ‘quantum theory’ means ‘the measurement problem’. Redhead is surely right that this leads physicists to “regard philosophy of
science as somewhat irrelevant”. Rightly so, too, if this were in fact representative of much of what actually goes on in philosophy of physics. However, the
state of play as represented in philosophy of physics and (some) philosophy of
science journals shows a very different level of engagement, with philosophers
of physics investigating the frontiers of scientific research. This disparity (or the
impression of such) is the raison d’eˆtre for the book you are now reading. The result is an introductory textbook covering those portions of philosophy of physics
research that other textbooks fail to cover, or cover only very briefly or very
simplistically. The three pillars of modern physics-relativity, quantum theory
and statistical mechanics-are still represented, then, but from a more advanced
and contemporary perspective.
The relation between Physics and Philosophy brings to mind the proverbial marriage of high drama; the parties do not approve of each other, but separated they cannot live. Philosophers find physicists shallow, and many physicists claim that they find philosophic speculations useless or worse. Mostly both display a lack of knowledge and understanding of the methods and goals of the other. A few researchers have tried to bridge this gap and explore the worlds of both parties. Michael Redhead has worked in this borderland, and when he retired from his chair in Cambridge, a symposium was arranged to honour him. The talks presented on this occasion are now published in a volume presenting much food for thought to both philosophers and physicists. The essays in this publication do not offer easy reading; not too many readers will have the preparation to penetrate the technical arguments offered. The authors are well acquainted with both philosophical argumentation and mathematical formalism, and, following the lead of Professor Redhead, they combine these in intricate and suggestive ways. Only a close reading can offer understanding of the points of view taken by the various authors. Browsing and mere reading defines the scenery, exploring it demands much more. Many of the nine essays included investigate the meaning of terms used loosely in physics contexts: locality, beables, symmetries and time in relativity. All essays utilize the mathematical structures of physics, but the approach is mainly philosophical; concepts like reality and metaphysics are applied. Some writings are more physical in their treatment of technical questions relating to modern quantum theory. Bohmian mechanics, localized quantum states and gauge symmetries are discussed in detail. It is, however, found that these present interpretational problems that are usually glossed over in purely physical treatments. For an old sceptic like myself, it is quite refreshing to find that many assertions, taken for granted in our textbooks, are indeed doubtful and offer conceptual or technical difficulties. This insight is what a philosophical analysis can offer the working physicist; future progress may well arise from such realizations. However, the results offered by philosophical analysis are usually found unsatisfactory; the hope that philosophy can suggest novel directions for the theory remains unfounded. Philosophers can learn that modern physics rests on a very shaky conceptual foundation. The theory has evolved by a combination of serendipity and opportunism. The beast that finally has emerged is neither well founded nor internally consistent. Its only merit is that it works. That offers the ultimate philosophical problem of modern physics. If the present book can help the philosopher to behold this challenging but overwhelming wilderness, then it serves a useful purpose indeed. But the prospective researcher has to learn to master the difficult language used by the natives, who are not always friendly. I enjoyed reading the book immensely, but the technical difficulty of the text made my understanding remain mostly superficial. I hope to have the time to return some of the essays, and look into the references and issues involved. The work is genuinely what it promises: a guide From Physics to Philosophy .
Why is so shop-soiled a topic as scientific realism once again prominent in the philosophy of science? Realism fought a great battle when Copernican and Ptolemaic world views were at issue long ago. Towards the end of the nineteenth century worries about atomism strongly contributed to anti-realism among philosophers of science. Is there a comparable scientific issue today? Maybe. One way to understand quantum mechanics is to take an idealist line. Some people argue that human observation plays an integral role in the very nature of a physical system, so that the system changes simply when it is measured. Talk of ‘the measurement problem in quantum mechanics’, the ‘ignorance interpretation’, and ‘the collapse of the wave packet’ make it no accident that contributions to the philosophy of quantum mechanics play an important part in the writings of the more original figures in the realist debate. A number of the ideas of Hilary Putnam, Bas van Fraassen or Nancy Cartwright seem to result from taking quantum mechanics as the model of all science. Conversely, numerous physicists wax philosophical. Bernard d'Espagnat has made one of the most important recent contributions to a new realism. He is partly motivated by the dissolution, in some parts of modern physics, of old realist concepts such as matter and entity. He is especially driven by some recent results, that bear the general name of Bell's inequality, and which have been thought to call in question concepts as various as logic, the temporal order of causation, and action at a distance.
Now that Bohr's philosophy of quantum physics has been surveyed in detail, it is time to provide a general description of his philosophy that illuminates the details. The question which I wish to address, then is: what is the general philosophy, or philosophical point of view, that underlies Bohr's philosophy of physics? Can his philosophy be neatly categorised in terms of any well known philosophical position? Apropos his philosophy of physics in particular, the question of primary interest is: to what extent, if any, is Bohr's philosophy of physics realist? No simple answer to this question can be given: indeed, certain realist and non-realist components are subtly interwoven in his philosophy, and to unravel them we shall need a fairly refined conception of what constitutes a realist interpretation of physics. Realism in the interpretation of physics The basis of realism is the view that statements of a certain class predicate properties of real objects, the truth-values of these statements being determined by reality as it is independently of how it appears to us to be. This notion is captured in the following characterisation of what constitutes the adoption of a realist interpretation of a physical theory.
The philosophy of physics is continuous with physics itself. Just as certain issues in the Foundations of Mathematics have been discussed by both mathematicians and by philosophers of mathematics, so certain issues in the philosophy of physics have been discussed by both physicists and by philosophers of physics. And just as there are issues of a more epistemological kind that tend to concern philosophers of mathematics more than they do working mathematicians, so there are issues that concern philosophers of physics more than they do working physicists. In this brief report I shall try to give an account of the present state of the discussion in America of both kinds of issues, starting with the problems of quantum mechanics, which concern both physicists and philosophers, and ending with general questions about necessary truth and the analytic-synthetic distinction which concern only philosophers. The problem of ‘measurement’ in quantum mechanics Quantum mechanics asserts that if A and B are any two possible ‘states’ of a physical system, then there exists at least one state (and in fact a continuous infinity of states) which can be described as ‘superpositions of A and B ’. If A and B are the sorts of states talked about in classical physics – definite states of position, or momentum, or kinetic energy, etc. – then their superpositions may not correspond to classically thinkable states.
I argue that a common philosophical approach to the interpretation of physical theories—particularly quantum field theories—has led philosophers astray. It has driven many to declare the quantum field theories employed by practicing physicists, so-called effective field theories, to be unfit for philosophical interpretation. In particular, such theories have been deemed unable to support a realist interpretation. I argue that these claims are mistaken: attending to the manner in which these theories are employed in physical practice, I show that interpreting effective field theories yields a robust foundation for a more refined approach to scientific realism in the context of quantum field theory. The article concludes by briefly sketching some general morals for interpretive practice in the philosophy of physics. 1 Introduction2 The Standard Account of Theory Interpretation2.1 Vices of the standard account3 A More Effective Realism3.1 Approximate truth3.2 Scales and ontology4 Conclusion