Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Making inferences in case of attitudes

Anto Unt

Published May 19, 2010• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Autoriõiguse tõttu puudub väitekirja elektroonilisest versioonist autori artikkel "The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and common sense" (lk. 14-30), mis ilmus rmt.-s: Estonian studies in the history and philosophy of science / edited by Rein Vihalemm. Dordrecht [etc.] : Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001. Lk 242–267.

Related papers

Quantum Mechanics and Common Sense

S. V. Gantsevich

A physical picture for Quantum Mechanics which permits to conciliate it with the usual common sense is proposed. The picture agrees with the canonical Copenhagen interpretation making more clear its statements.

arXiv:1609.08427•Sep 19, 2016•0 citations

The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and Common Sense

Anto Unt

Boston studies in the philosophy of science•Jan 1, 2001•1 citation

A Midrash upon Quantum Mechanics

Dietrick E. Thomsen

The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics has become the standard way of explaining the physical philosophical meaning of the mathematics of microscopic behavior. It developed from the thought of people who attended the Institute for Theoretical Physics of the University of Copenhagen during the 40 years that Niels Bohr directed it, from 1920 to 1962. Bohr took a large part in developing the Copenhagen Interpretation, he didn't escape all controversy over it (although the quote above is a bit of an exaggeration). Bohr did die before the experimental theoretical developments that have transposed the debate over the appropriateness adequacy of the Copenhagen Interpretation into a new key, he may well have been lucky to have escaped when he did. There is no authoritative codification of CI [the Copenhagen Interpretation], write T Gornitz C. E von Weizsacker of the Max Planck Institute in Starnberg, West Germany in' their formal presentation to the recent Loyola Conference on Mathematical Interpretational Problems in Relativistic Quantum Theory, and under the conditions of its origin there probably could not be one.... All prominent authors of the time who wrote on these questions, like Bohr, [Werner] Heisenberg, [Wolfgang] Pauli, J[ohn] v[on] Neumann on one side, [Albert] Einstein [Erwin] Schrodinger on the other, fell, so we feel, into some stammering when they tried to express their own positions. Nevertheless there is what might be called a Copenhagen attitude. It concentrates on observable phenomena, makes statistics probability central to its understanding, considers quantum mechanics primarily a theory of knowledge or information becomes a kind of physica negativa (analogous to a theologia negativa) in trying not to say too much about things that can't be seen or felt. For example, it doesn't much care whether the orbits of electrons in atoms are real or not and, in fact, tends to regard them as unreal. It appears in most textbooks as the standard way of looking at things.

Science News•Jul 11, 1987•1 citation

Interpreting Quantum Mechanics

David W. Snoke

This novel text directly addresses common claims and misconceptions around quantum mechanics and presents a fresh and modern understanding of this fundamental and essential physical theory. It begins with a non-mathematical introduction to some of the more controversial topics in the foundations of quantum mechanics. For those more familiar with the theoretical framework of quantum mechanics, the text moves on to a general introduction to quantum field theory, followed by a detailed discussion of cutting-edge topics in this area such as decoherence and spontaneous coherence. Several important philosophical problems in quantum mechanics are considered, and their interpretations are compared, notably the Copenhagen and many-worlds interpretations. The inclusion of frequent real-world examples, such as superconductors and superfluids, ensures the book remains grounded in modern research. This book will be a valuable resource for students and researchers in both physics and the philosophy of science interested in the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 30, 2024•9 citations

Various interpretations

Franck Laloë

Long ago, and almost in parallel with the “orthodox” Copenhagen/standard interpretation, other interpretations of quantum mechanics were proposed. Giving an exhaustive discussion of all points of view that have been put forward since then would probably be an impossible task. Moreover, while one can distinguish big families among the interpretations, it is also possible to combine them in many ways, with an almost infinite number of nuances. The Copenhagen/standard interpretation itself, as we have seen, is certainly not a monolithic construction, but can be declined in various forms. In this chapter, we will therefore limit ourselves to a general description of the major families of interpretations. We will begin with a brief description of some frequent attitudes observed among scientists in laboratories, who do not necessarily pay extreme attention to the foundations of quantum mechanics, even when they do experiments in quantum physics. In practice, they often use pragmatic rules, which are sufficient to interpret all their experiments, and prefer to avoid difficult questions about the very nature of the measurement process. For instance, one popular point of view is the “correlation interpretation”, which can be considered as a “minimal interpretation” – minimal but sufficient for all practical purposes; it is accepted as a valid rule by a large majority of physicists, even those who prefer to supplement it with other elements in order to reach a more precise interpretation for the whole theory. We will then proceed to discuss various families of interpretations that are less common, including additional variables, modified Schrödinger dynamics, consistent histories, Everett interpretation, etc.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 30, 2012•1 citation

a book entitled Schroedinger's Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (Kluwer, 1996). He also published two books in French on quantum mechanics and on realism in science, in 1996 and 1998. More recently, he has focused on the relations between the philosophy of quantum mechanics and the philosophy of mind, working in close collaboration with F. Varela. He pub

Harold I. Brown, Mark Crooks

•Jan 1, 2008•0 citations
Autoriõiguse tõttu puudub väitekirja elektroonilisest versioonist autori artikkel "The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and common sense" (lk. 14-30), mis ilmus rmt.-s: Estonian studies in the history and philosophy of science / edited by Rein Vihalemm. Dordrecht [etc.] : Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001. Lk 242–267.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics has become the standard way of explaining the physical philosophical meaning of the mathematics of microscopic behavior. It developed from the thought of people who attended the Institute for Theoretical Physics of the University of Copenhagen during the 40 years that Niels Bohr directed it, from 1920 to 1962. Bohr took a large part in developing the Copenhagen Interpretation, he didn't escape all controversy over it (although the quote above is a bit of an exaggeration). Bohr did die before the experimental theoretical developments that have transposed the debate over the appropriateness adequacy of the Copenhagen Interpretation into a new key, he may well have been lucky to have escaped when he did. There is no authoritative codification of CI [the Copenhagen Interpretation], write T Gornitz C. E von Weizsacker of the Max Planck Institute in Starnberg, West Germany in' their formal presentation to the recent Loyola Conference on Mathematical Interpretational Problems in Relativistic Quantum Theory, and under the conditions of its origin there probably could not be one.... All prominent authors of the time who wrote on these questions, like Bohr, [Werner] Heisenberg, [Wolfgang] Pauli, J[ohn] v[on] Neumann on one side, [Albert] Einstein [Erwin] Schrodinger on the other, fell, so we feel, into some stammering when they tried to express their own positions. Nevertheless there is what might be called a Copenhagen attitude. It concentrates on observable phenomena, makes statistics probability central to its understanding, considers quantum mechanics primarily a theory of knowledge or information becomes a kind of physica negativa (analogous to a theologia negativa) in trying not to say too much about things that can't be seen or felt. For example, it doesn't much care whether the orbits of electrons in atoms are real or not and, in fact, tends to regard them as unreal. It appears in most textbooks as the standard way of looking at things.
This novel text directly addresses common claims and misconceptions around quantum mechanics and presents a fresh and modern understanding of this fundamental and essential physical theory. It begins with a non-mathematical introduction to some of the more controversial topics in the foundations of quantum mechanics. For those more familiar with the theoretical framework of quantum mechanics, the text moves on to a general introduction to quantum field theory, followed by a detailed discussion of cutting-edge topics in this area such as decoherence and spontaneous coherence. Several important philosophical problems in quantum mechanics are considered, and their interpretations are compared, notably the Copenhagen and many-worlds interpretations. The inclusion of frequent real-world examples, such as superconductors and superfluids, ensures the book remains grounded in modern research. This book will be a valuable resource for students and researchers in both physics and the philosophy of science interested in the foundations of quantum mechanics.
Long ago, and almost in parallel with the “orthodox” Copenhagen/standard interpretation, other interpretations of quantum mechanics were proposed. Giving an exhaustive discussion of all points of view that have been put forward since then would probably be an impossible task. Moreover, while one can distinguish big families among the interpretations, it is also possible to combine them in many ways, with an almost infinite number of nuances. The Copenhagen/standard interpretation itself, as we have seen, is certainly not a monolithic construction, but can be declined in various forms. In this chapter, we will therefore limit ourselves to a general description of the major families of interpretations. We will begin with a brief description of some frequent attitudes observed among scientists in laboratories, who do not necessarily pay extreme attention to the foundations of quantum mechanics, even when they do experiments in quantum physics. In practice, they often use pragmatic rules, which are sufficient to interpret all their experiments, and prefer to avoid difficult questions about the very nature of the measurement process. For instance, one popular point of view is the “correlation interpretation”, which can be considered as a “minimal interpretation” – minimal but sufficient for all practical purposes; it is accepted as a valid rule by a large majority of physicists, even those who prefer to supplement it with other elements in order to reach a more precise interpretation for the whole theory. We will then proceed to discuss various families of interpretations that are less common, including additional variables, modified Schrödinger dynamics, consistent histories, Everett interpretation, etc.