It is a privilege to contribute to this volume honouring David Bohm. There is no need to enumerate his basic contributions to modern theoretical physics; these are well known to the scientific community. What IS however unique about David Bohm is his deep involvement in epistemological problems. In this perspective, there is probably no single concept more fundamental than time in its connection with cosmology. As Karl Popper beautifully writes 1: 'There is at least one philosophic problem in which all thinking men are interested. It is the problem of cosmology: the problem of understanding the world - including ourselves, and our knowledge, as part of the world.'
It is a privilege to contribute to this volume honouring David Bohm. There is no need to enumerate his basic contributions to modern theoretical physics; these are well known to the scientific community. What IS however unique about David Bohm is his deep involvement in epistemological problems. In this perspective, there is probably no single concept more fundamental than time in its connection with cosmology. As Karl Popper beautifully writes 1: 'There is at least one philosophic problem in which all thinking men are interested. It is the problem of cosmology: the problem of understanding the world - including ourselves, and our knowledge, as part of the world.'
Abstract If we are not persuaded of the approach to recovering causality in quantum physics through the de Broglie-Bohm theory (perhaps because, like Einstein, we think this route ‘too cheap’) or Popper’s reinterpretation of the meaning of probability, we must seek alternative solutions to the problems of quantum probability and the collapse of the wave function. Even if we choose to accept what quantum probability tells us concerning the fundamental indeterminism and acausality of the quantum world, we are still left to trouble over quantum measurement.
This book develops a rigorous theory of indeterminism as a local and modal concept. Its crucial insight is that our world contains events or processes with alternative, really possible outcomes. The theory aims at clarifying what this assumption involves, and it does it in two ways. First, it provides a mathematically rigorous framework for local and modal indeterminism. Second, we support that theory by spelling out the philosophically relevant consequences of this formulation and by showing its fruitful applications in metaphysics. To this end, we offer a formal analysis of modal correlations and of causation, which is applicable in indeterministic and non-local contexts as well. We also propose a rigorous theory of objective single-case probabilities, intended to represent degrees of possibility. In a third step, we link our theory to current physics, investigating how local and modal indeterminism relates to issues in the foundations of physics, in particular, quantum non-locality and spatio-temporal relativity. The book also ventures into the philosophy of time, showing how the theory’s resources can be used to explicate the dynamic concept of the past, present, and future based on local indeterminism.
Our thesis consists in analyzing, based on theories of the American quantum physicist David Bohm (1917-1992) and the Russian physical chemist, naturalized Belgian, Ilya Prigogine (1917-2003), the science ideas of these two scientists, how they represent authentic scientific views, quite deviating from the prevailing view of science, and also how their concepts contribute to overcoming long dichotomies that have been present in the history of science since a long time, such as determinism-indeterminism antithesis. Through a critical biographical analysis, we present the main aspects of scientific research work of Bohm, his formulation of an alternative interpretation of quantum theory, which has ignited debates and controversies within the world of quanta, his several theoretical contributions, including the theory of plasma, the development of an innovative theory called implicit and explicit order and also his philosophical investigations. We also present and analyze the scientific way of Prigogine and his theoretical interest in non-equilibrium thermodynamics. We show the fundamentals of his theory of dissipative structures, his unique insight into the irreversible phenomena and the most significant implications of this new view of nature and science that led him to the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1977. Although several important differences between theoretical perspectives and Bohm and Prigogine approach, we noted some similar points that were quite significant, as a concept of science radically different from the prevailing idealized view. Among these similarities we have the search for a unity between man and nature, the importance given to the conception of science without dissociating it from the deepest philosophical questions and the concern about establishing more fruitful dialogues among areas of knowledge.
This contribution to the book in honour of J.S. Bell will probably differ from the remaining ones, in particular since only a part of it will be devoted to specific technical arguments. In fact I have considered appropriate to share with the community of physicists interested in the foundational problems of our best theory the repeated interactions I had with him in the last four years of his life, the deep discussions in which we have been involved in particular in connection with the elaboration of collapse theories and their interpretation, the contributions he gave to the development of this approach, both at a formal level, as well as championing it on repeated occasions. In brief, I intend to play here the role of one of those lucky persons who became acquainted with him personally, who has exchanged important views with him, who has learned a lot from his deep insight and conceptual lucidity, and, last but not least, one whose scientific work has been appreciated by him. Moreover, due to the fact that this book intends to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the derivation of the fundamental inequality which bears his name, I will also devote a small part of the text to recall his clear cut views about the locality issue, views that I believe have not been grasped correctly by a remarkable part of the scientific community. I will analyze this problem in quite general terms at the end of the paper.
Introduction This contribution to the book in honour of J. S. Bell will probably differ from the remaining ones, in particular since only a part of it will be devoted to specific technical arguments. In fact I have considered it appropriate to share with the community of physicists interested in the foundational problems of our best theory the repeated interactions I had with him in the last four years of his life, the deep discussions in which we have been involved in particular in connection with the elaboration of collapse theories and their interpretation, and the contributions he gave to the development of this approach at a formal level, as well as championing it on repeated occasions. In brief, I intend to play here the role of one of those lucky persons who became acquainted with him personally, who has exchanged important views with him, who has learned a lot from his deep insight and conceptual lucidity, and, last but not least, whose scientific work has been appreciated by him. Moreover, due to the fact that this book intends to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the derivation of the fundamental inequality which bears his name, I will also devote a small part of the text to recalling his clearcut views about the locality issue, views that I believe have not been grasped correctly by a remarkable part of the scientific community. I will analyze this problem in quite general terms at the end of the paper. Some of Bell's Scientific Achievements Bell received bachelor's degrees in experimental physics and in mathematical physics at Queen'sUniversity of Belfast in the years 1948 and 1949, respectively, and a PhD in physics at the University of Birmingham. We all know very well that already at that time he was absolutely unsatisfied with the conceptual structure of quantum mechanics and with the way in which it was taught. This is significantly expressed by the statement he made during an interview to Jeremy Bernstein: I remember arguing with one of my professors, a Doctor Sloane, about that. I was getting very heated and accusing him, more or less, of dishonesty. He was getting very heated too and said, ‘You're going too far.’