Hartry Field (1980) has developed an interesting nominalization strategy for Newtonian gravitation theory—a strategy that reformulates the theory without quantification over abstract entities. According to David Malament (1982), Field's strategy cannot be extended to quantum mechanics (QM), and so it only has a limited scope. In a recent work, Mark Balaguer has responded to Malament's challenge by indicating how QM can be nominalized, and by “doing much of the work needed to provide the nominalization” (Balaguer 1998, 114). In this paper, I critically assess Balaguer's proposal, and argue that it ultimately fails. Balaguer's strategy is incompatible with a number of interpretations of QM, in particular with Bas van Fraassen's version of the modal interpretation. And given that Balaguer's strategy invokes physically real propensities, it is unclear whether it is even compatible with nominalism. I conclude that the nominalization of QM remains a major problem for the nominalist.
Hartry Field (1980) has developed an interesting nominalization strategy for Newtonian gravitation theory—a strategy that reformulates the theory without quantification over abstract entities. According to David Malament (1982), Field's strategy cannot be extended to quantum mechanics (QM), and so it only has a limited scope. In a recent work, Mark Balaguer has responded to Malament's challenge by indicating how QM can be nominalized, and by “doing much of the work needed to provide the nominalization” (Balaguer 1998, 114). In this paper, I critically assess Balaguer's proposal, and argue that it ultimately fails. Balaguer's strategy is incompatible with a number of interpretations of QM, in particular with Bas van Fraassen's version of the modal interpretation. And given that Balaguer's strategy invokes physically real propensities, it is unclear whether it is even compatible with nominalism. I conclude that the nominalization of QM remains a major problem for the nominalist.
In this paper I will provide the beginnings of a nominalization of quantum mechanics, or QM. I will not completely nominalize QM, but I will pro-vide what I think is the most important part of such a nominalization, namely, a nominalistic recovery of the algebraic structure of Hilbert spaces. To nominalize QM is to reformulate it so that it no longer contains any reference to, or quantification over, abstract objects, i.e., objects which are aspatial, atemporal, acausal, mind-independent, etc. The reason for want-ing to do this is to show that we can be realists about QM without believ-ing in abstract objects. To argue that our physical theories can be nominalized is not to argue that nominalism—i.e., the view that there are no abstract objects—is true. It is merely to rebut a certain argument against nominalism, viz., the Quine-Putnam indispensability argument. I do not think there are any good arguments for nominalism, and I have elsewhere (1995) responded to what is widely regarded as the best such argument, viz., Benacerraf's (1973) epistemological argument against the existence of abstract objects. And I should also note here that even if it turns out that empirical science cannot be nominalized, it will not necessarily mean that nominalism is false, because it may be that nominalists can admit that empirical science contains indispensable abstract-object talk, and simply account for this fact; indeed, in another paper (forthcoming) I have tried to do just that. 1. How Field nominalizes The program of nominalization was initiated by Hartry Field (1980), who tried to nominalize Newtonian Gravitation Theory, a classical flat-space-time theory. David Malament has argued (1982) that Field's method can-not be extended to cover QM. I think Malament is wrong, and below, I will explain why. The first thing to do, however, is explain Field's method. I will concentrate on Field's nominalization of physical quantities, such as temperature and length (Field 1980, Ch. 7). For the sake of simplicity, my presentation will differ somewhat from Field's. For example, I concen-
In this paper, I introduce an intrinsic account of the quantum state. This account contains three desirable features that the standard platonistic account lacks: (1) it does not refer to any abstract mathematical objects such as complex numbers, (2) it is independent of the usual arbitrary conventions in the wave function representation, and (3) it explains why the quantum state has its amplitude and phase degrees of freedom. Consequently, this account extends Hartry Field’s program outlined in Science Without Numbers (1980), responds to David Malament’s long-standing impossibility conjecture (1982), and establishes an important first step towards a genuinely intrinsic and nominalistic account of quantum mechanics. I will also compare the present account to Mark Balaguer’s (1996) nominalization of quantum mechanics and discuss how it might bear on the debate about “wave function realism.” In closing, I will suggest some possible ways to extend this account to accommodate spinorial degrees of freedom and a variable number of particles (e.g. for particle creation and annihilation). Along the way, I axiomatize the quantum phase structure as what I shall call a “periodic difference structure” and prove a representation theorem as well as a uniqueness theorem. These formal results could prove fruitful for further investigation into the metaphysics of phase and theoretical structure. (For a more recent version of this paper, please see "The Intrinsic Structure of Quantum Mechanics" available on PhilPapers.)
Bas van Fraassen in [4] has recently tried to use modal logic to solve the measurement problem of quantum mechanics. His model is based on a method of expressing quantum states developed by Hugh Everett [1] called the “relative state formulation.” Unfortunately, Everett's mathematics cannot be generalized as van Fraassen requires. The difficulty itself is elementary enough. But a revision of van Fraassen's postulates (such as the one he adopted on p. 341 after he had been told of the problem) can save the mathematics only on pain of making the whole study irrelevant to the physics. I shall explain the dilemma in this note. In a later paper [5], van Fraassen avoids this dilemma by developing an abstract modal interpretation which does not rely on any expression for quantum states.
There is no such thing as “The Quantum Logical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”. Rather, there is a cluster of interpretations, all of which can be described as “quantum logical”. Here I provide a general framework for discussing interpretations of this kind, and then locate various suggestions within it. The presentation owes much to van Fraassen (see, in particular, van Fraassen 1974 ); his “modal interpretation” is one of those I discuss, along with those of Jauch, Putnam and Kochen. I begin by rehearsing some orthodox quantum theory. Within quantum mechanics we deal with a set 0 of measurable quantities, orobservables(position, momentum, components of spin and so on). Experiment can determine the value of an observable for a given system: the values so determined will be real numbers. A maximal amount of information about what the result would be for a given system, whatever experiment we chose to perform on it, is available once we know thestateof the system.
Mathematics, as Eugene Wigner noted, is unreasonably effective in physics. The argument of this paper is that the disproportionate attention that philosophers have paid to discrete structures such as the natural numbers, for which a nominalist construction may be possible, has deprived us of the best argument for Platonism, which lies in continuous structures—in fields and their derived algebras, such as Clifford algebras. The argument that Wigner was making is best made with respect to such structures—in a loose sense, with respect to geometry rather than arithmetic. The purpose of the present paper is to make this connection between mathematical realism and geometrical entities. It thus constitutes an argument against formalism, for which mathematics is merely a game with humanly set rules; and nominalism, in which whatever mathematics is used is eliminable in the final analysis, by often insufficiently specified means. The hope is that light may be cast on the stubborn mysteries of the nature of quantum mechanics and its mathematical formulation, with particular reference to spinor representations—as they have been developed by Andrej Trautman. Thus, according to our argument, quantum mechanics (QM) may appear more natural, as we have better reasons to take spinor structures as irreducibly real, a view consonant with the work of Trautman and Penrose in particular.
In the present paper I describe a general formal semantic scheme for the interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) , and on the basis of this scheme I examine the modal interpretation of QM — both the Copenhagen and the anti-Copenhagen variants — proposed by van Fraassen [19, 20, 21], This is intended to be a fragment of a larger work [12] which additionally investigates a number of closely related interpretations, including ones proposed by Bub and Demopoulos [1, 2, 3, 4], Fine [5, 6], and Krips [16, 17]. Formal semantically speaking (see, e.g., Thomason [18]), a logic L may be characterized as an ordered pair <SYN,SEM>, where SYN is the underlying syntax (language) of L, and SEM is the semantics of L, which consists of a class of semantic assignments on SYN.