The thesis of this article is simple: even if it is accepted that quantum mechanics is a fundamentally probabilistic theory, this provides us with no special reason to believe in "chances" in the sense of objectively existing factors that are responsible for the relative frequencies we encounter in experiments.More in general, quantum mechanics gives us no special reason to believe in the actual existence of modalities.We may intuitively be inclined to believe in chances as a kind of causes, just as in classical mechanics we are inclined to think of forces as causal powers that produce accelerations.It might even be the case that intuitions of this kind can be developed into a coherent metaphysical scheme (something which has yet to be done, I think).But as I shall argue, a sober Humean perspective on quantum mechanics is certainly possible as well, and has much to recommend it.In short, the thesis of the present paper is that for a Humean, quantum mechanics introduces no reasons to abandon his position.
The thesis of this article is simple: even if it is accepted that quantum mechanics is a fundamentally probabilistic theory, this provides us with no special reason to believe in "chances" in the sense of objectively existing factors that are responsible for the relative frequencies we encounter in experiments.More in general, quantum mechanics gives us no special reason to believe in the actual existence of modalities.We may intuitively be inclined to believe in chances as a kind of causes, just as in classical mechanics we are inclined to think of forces as causal powers that produce accelerations.It might even be the case that intuitions of this kind can be developed into a coherent metaphysical scheme (something which has yet to be done, I think).But as I shall argue, a sober Humean perspective on quantum mechanics is certainly possible as well, and has much to recommend it.In short, the thesis of the present paper is that for a Humean, quantum mechanics introduces no reasons to abandon his position.
In trying to develop a theory of chance, I have so far drawn largely on a metaphysical picture inspired by classical physics, and have used statistical mechanics as my central example of chance arising in physical theories. It has proven difficult to develop an adequate theory of chance. But perhaps things will look different if we turn to quantum mechanics. The theory of quantum mechanics is extremely well confirmed. It is doubtful whether it is strictly true in its current form, due to the well-known conflict between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity, but it is an outstandingly good example of a successful physical theory, and it represents a stark break from earlier models of the physical world. Perhaps by tapping into these resources, we can develop an adequate metaphysics of chance. The quantum mechanical world It is widely believed that quantum mechanics is starkly opposed to classical physics, because quantum mechanics claims that the world is governed by fundamentally indeterministic laws. As it happens, this common belief oversimplifies somewhat. Quantum mechanics is a theory that is formulated in relatively mathematical terms, quite removed from concepts of directly observable physical entities. Consequently, there is a great deal of room for interpretation of the meaning of the mathematics. Indeed, there are at least three interpretations of quantum mechanics which are serious candidates for giving an adequate account of how the mathematics relates to reality.
This article sits at a point of intersection between the philosophy of physics and the metaphysics of modality. There are clear similarities between Everettian quantum mechanics and various modal metaphysical theories, but there have hitherto been few attempts at exploring how the two topics relate. In this article, I build on a series of recent papers by Wilson ([2011], [2012], [2013]), who argues that Everettian quantum mechanics’ connections with traditional modal metaphysics are vital in defending it against objections. I show that Wilson’s preferred version of Everettian quantum mechanics has two problems. First, it is unable to account for the contingency of various intuitively contingent modal claims. Second, it fails to yield intuitive truth values on modal claims about the number of branches in a given Everettian multiverse. Since modal claims about branch number are instrumental in decision-theoretic solutions to Everettian quantum mechanics’ problem(s) with probability, this second problem has wider dialectical implications. I suggest amendments to the underlying metaphysics that overcome these problems. The result is a more robust version of Everettian quantum mechanics.
On a very intuitive way of thinking, if it is already determined that some event will happen, then there is no non-trivial chance of it failing to happen, and if it is already determined that some event will not happen, then there is no non-trivial chance of it happening. A different sort of worry that arises for an actual frequentist analysis of deterministic chance is that such an analysis seems unsuited to theories like Boltzmannian statistical mechanics or Bohmian mechanics insofar as those theories are supposed to describe the evolution of the Universe as a whole. It should be clear, then, that there are options available for understanding deterministic chance that are in keeping with several of the leading metaphysical analyses of chance. It is widely accepted that whatever chances are, they are to be contrasted with individual credences . According to classical statistical mechanics, the fundamental laws are Newtonian and thus deterministic.
[I] think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law Quantum mechanics [is] that mysterious, confusing discipline, which none of us really understands but which we know how to use. It works perfectly, as far as we can tell, in describing physical reality, but it is a ‘counter-intuitive discipline’… Murray Gell-Mann, Questions for the Future [The quantum] postulate implies a renunciation as regards the causal space-time co-ordination of atomic processes. Niels Bohr, Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature It should be emphasized, however, that the probability function does not in itself represent a course of events in the course of time. It represents a tendency for events and our knowledge of events. The probability function can be connected with reality only if one essential condition is fulfilled: if a new measurement is made to determine a certain property of the system. [T]he idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them…is impossible … Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy [In] quantum theory it is the principle of causality , or more accurately that of determinism , which must be dropped and replaced by something else.… We now have a new form of the law of causality.… It is as follows: if in a certain process the initial conditions are determined as accurately as the uncertainty relations permit, then the probabilities of all possible subsequent states are governed by exact laws. Max Born, The Restless Universe
Quantum mechanics has maintained over the years the reputation of being "the most obscure theory." It works perfectly well, but nobody seems to know why. It has been argued that the difficulty in understanding quantum theory is our failed attempt to force onto it a wrong conceptual scheme, wanting at all costs to think about the objects of the theory as, precisely, objects, i.e., entities having continuously actual spatiotemporal properties. This too restrictive spatiotemporal scheme is most probably at the heart of the problem, as also underlined by the Einsteinian revolution, but then what could be an alternative? Many thinkers have suggested that we must surrender to the fact that our physical world is one of immanent powers and potencies. Aristotle did so ante quantum litteram, followed by scholars like Heisenberg, Primas, Shimony, Piron, Kastner, Kauffman, de Ronde, just to name a few, including the authors, who were both students of Piron in Geneva. However, if on the one hand a potentiality ontology puts the accent on the processes of change, responsible for the incessant shifts between actual and potential properties, on the other hand it does not tell what these changes are all about. In other words, the metaphysical question remains of identifying the nature of the bearer of these potencies, or potentialities, and of the entities that can actualize them. It is the purpose of the present article to emphasize that the above question has found a possible answer in the recent Conceptuality Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which we believe offers the missing ontology and metaphysics that can make the theory fully intelligible, and even intuitive.
It has been widely noted that Humean supervenience, according to which everything supervenes on intrinsic properties of point-sized things and the spatiotemporal relations between them, is at odds with the nonlocal character of quantum mechanics, according to which not everything supervenes on intrinsic properties of point-sized things and the spatiotemporal relations between them. In particular, a standard view is that the parts of a composite quantum system instantiate further relations which are not accounted for in Lewis's Humean mosaic. But that suggests a simple solution: Why couldn't Lewis simply add these new relations to the supervenience basis? The aim of this article is to use Humean supervenience as a foil to spell out a feature of entanglement of general metaphysical interest: The way in which the metaphysical lessons drawn for two-party systems ramify when systems of many parties are considered. The main conclusion is that the proposed simple fix in fact results in a supervenience thesis different in kind from Lewis's, by making the relations in the supervenience basis global in a certain sense. 1 Introduction 2 Basic Argument against Humean Supervenience 3 A Natural Line of Response 4 A Different Kind of Supervenience Thesis