This chapter describes the theory as a variety of realism. The particular version of realism that is called there "macro-objectivism" seems hardly compatible with quantum mechanics. It is a kind of realism that is at the antipodes of micro- or macro-objectivism. In a sense, its first promoter was E. Schrodinger, but it was systematized and carried to its logical extreme 10 years ago by H. Everett. This theory received support from Wheeler and, more recently, from De Witt. The relativity of state theory obviously has extremely attractive aspects, along with some other features that are very hard to accept. One of its weaknesses is, in a way, a consequence of its success: as shown above, it is a theory that cannot be disproved by any specific experiment, since people cannot observe the split. For this reason it can rightly be called a "metaphysical theory," provided that the prefix "meta-" is given roughly the same sense as in meta-mathematics.
This chapter describes the theory as a variety of realism. The particular version of realism that is called there "macro-objectivism" seems hardly compatible with quantum mechanics. It is a kind of realism that is at the antipodes of micro- or macro-objectivism. In a sense, its first promoter was E. Schrodinger, but it was systematized and carried to its logical extreme 10 years ago by H. Everett. This theory received support from Wheeler and, more recently, from De Witt. The relativity of state theory obviously has extremely attractive aspects, along with some other features that are very hard to accept. One of its weaknesses is, in a way, a consequence of its success: as shown above, it is a theory that cannot be disproved by any specific experiment, since people cannot observe the split. For this reason it can rightly be called a "metaphysical theory," provided that the prefix "meta-" is given roughly the same sense as in meta-mathematics.
This chapter provides a moderately precise shape to the idea that physical reality is independent of physicists, an idea deeply rooted in the minds of scientists and laymen alike. This idea is particularized through the introduction of supplementary assumptions that are inspired by common sense. The versions of realism thus obtained are discussed in the light of quantum physics. They are found to be unacceptable. In order for realism to be something more than an arbitrary metaphysical construction, physicists should have some grip on reality through their experience. In conventional quantum mechanics, the hypothesis implies that at any time in its history a microscopic particle always possesses a complete set of compatible observables endowed with definite values. Macro-objectivism, in spite of physicists' reference to experience, is distinctly a realistic philosophy, since it assumes that physical objects would exist and have specific properties even if no human beings existed.
According to scientific realism, science gives us an approximately true description of what the world is like. But what does it mean? In this chapter, we focus on the ontological and metaphysical aspects of this discussion. That is, we are concerned with the following questions: what there is, according to our best scientific theories? And how are these things that theories say exist? We start from the assumption that a genuine scientific realism must deal with these issues. Taking non-relativistic quantum mechanics as a case study, we discuss some of the challenges currently faced by a genuinely realistic stance. We argue, first, that in the ontological aspect, realists are in the same boat as science, that is, without sufficient epistemic justification to adopt the belief in the entities postulated by a single quantum theory, given that experience (currently) is not able to decide between rival theories; in the metaphysical aspect, realists also encounter problems with theory choice, given the possibility of associating more than one metaphysical theory with the description of the entities postulated by each quantum theory. The same goes for structuralist alternatives, since, even if we accept that scientific theories are committed to the existence of structures, but not objects, we still do not know what structures are, metaphysically. Finally, we move forward in the discussion with the meta-Popperian method, which serves to reduce the metaphysical alternatives associated with the ontological postulates of scientific theories. We may not know what the correct alternative is, but we have been able to progressively check which metaphysical alternatives are incompatible with each scientific theory.
Quantum mechanics has seemed to defy all attempts to construe it realistically, but antirealism, like the many‐worlds hypothesis, is even more difficult to accept. In order to give a realist construal of quantum mechanics, we need first to distinguish the objective and rational aspect of reality from the paradigmatic thing‐like aspects of having determinate physical properties: quantum‐mechanical entities may be real in the former sense though not in the latter. Anti‐realist arguments are based on the difficulty of giving an account of quantum‐mechanical collapse and the apparent superluminal velocities involved. Objections to superluminal velocities on the score of the special theory of relativity are found not to be conclusive, and the price—there being some preferred frame of reference—to be acceptable. A sketch of a probabilistic account of quantum‐mechanical collapse is offered, which makes the difference between the macro‐ and the micro‐world a matter of degree rather than kind. If that, or some other, account proved acceptable, we could be quantum‐mechanical realists, though quantum‐mechanical reality would be very different from that of material objects in hardware shops.
Quantum mechanics has always presented a problem for scientific realists.For it does not seem to offer a coherent picture of the world.I think it does, and that there is a viable quantum mechanical model of reality.But it cannot be constructed, given the continuity constraints that we usually place on realistic models.To be a quantum mechanical realist, one has to be willing to accept that there are two fundamentally different kinds of processes occurring in nature: continuous, but quantum mechanically indeterminate, energy transfer processes and discontinuous, but spatially extended, changes of state.The unwillingness of philosophers to accept that there is such a distinction has caused many of them to doubt the reality of Schrodinger waves, and the processes of their generation and collapse.I am fully aware that I am treading on well-trodden territory, and that the technical difficulties that must be faced by anyone who is not a specialist in the field are immense.Nevertheless, I think there is a fairly clear metaphysical position on these issues derivable from the kind of essentialist realism outlined in the previous chapter, and I ask readers to bear with me.First, realism about Schrodinger waves requires the belief that particles are always transmitted as quantum mechanically indeterminate 1.
Abstract What does realism about the quantum state imply? What follows when quantum theory is applied without restriction, if need be, to the whole universe? These are the questions which are debated in this book. All the chapters start from the point of realism, and based on the need, or the aspiration, for a theory that unites micro- and macroworlds, at least in principle. But the further claim argued by some is that if you allow the Schrödinger equation unrestricted application, supposing the quantum state to be something physically real, then this universe is one of countlessly many others, constantly branching in time, all of which are real. The result is the many worlds theory, also known as the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics. The contrary claim sees this picture of many worlds as in no sense inherent in quantum mechanics, even when the latter is allowed unrestricted scope and even given that the quantum state itself is something physically real. For this picture of branching worlds fails to make physical sense, let alone common sense, even on its own terms. The status of these worlds, what they are made of, is never adequately explained. Ordinary ideas about time and identity over time become hopelessly compromised. The concept of probability itself is brought into question. This picture of many branching worlds is inchoate, it is a vision, an error. There are realist alternatives to many worlds, some even that preserve the Schrödinger equation unchanged. Twenty chapters, accompanied by commentaries and discussions, examine these claims and counterclaims in depth. They focus first on the question of ontology, the existence of worlds, second on the interpretation of probability, and third on alternatives or additions to many worlds. The introduction offers a helpful guide to the arguments for the Everett interpretation, particularly as they have been formulated in the last two decades.
According to scientific realism, science gives us an approximately true description of what the world is like. But what does it mean? In this chapter, we focus on the ontological and metaphysical aspects of this discussion. That is, we are concerned with the following questions: what there is, according to our best scientific theories? And how are these things that theories say exist? We start from the assumption that a genuine scientific realism must deal with these issues. Taking non-relativistic quantum mechanics as a case study, we discuss some of the challenges currently faced by a genuinely realistic stance. We argue, first, that in the ontological aspect, realists are in the same boat as science, that is, without sufficient epistemic justification to adopt the belief in the entities postulated by a single quantum theory, given that experience (currently) is not able to decide between rival theories; in the metaphysical aspect, realists also encounter problems with theory choice, given the possibility of associating more than one metaphysical theory with the description of the entities postulated by each quantum theory. The same goes for structuralist alternatives, since, even if we accept that scientific theories are committed to the existence of structures, but not objects, we still do not know what structures are, metaphysically. Finally, we move forward in the discussion with the meta-Popperian method, which serves to reduce the metaphysical alternatives associated with the ontological postulates of scientific theories. We may not know what the correct alternative is, but we have been able to progressively check which metaphysical alternatives are incompatible with each scientific theory.