A semantical and methodological analysis of physical theories is performed in order to find out their relation to reality and to human experience. It is shown that every physical theory refers immediately to an idealized model of waht is supposed to be a piece of reality-the mediate referent of the theory. Two kinds of physical interpretation of physical symbols are distinguished : objective and operational, and the difference between reference and evidence is stressed. It is claimed that for a theory to be physically meaningful it is necessary that it includes rules of objective reference. In some cases a theory contains, in addition, evidential reference rules, i.e. correspondences between some of its concepts and empirical items. But the test. of any theory requires, rather than operational rules, further theories that can bridge the gap between what the theory refers to (e.g., the passage of a cosmic ray) and its remote symptom (e.g., the click of a counter). The conditions for the semantical consistency are sketched and it is argued that there does not exist a semantically consistency inter-pretation of any of the formalisms of quantum theory. From this analysis arguments in favor of critical realism are drawn.
A semantical and methodological analysis of physical theories is performed in order to find out their relation to reality and to human experience. It is shown that every physical theory refers immediately to an idealized model of waht is supposed to be a piece of reality-the mediate referent of the theory. Two kinds of physical interpretation of physical symbols are distinguished : objective and operational, and the difference between reference and evidence is stressed. It is claimed that for a theory to be physically meaningful it is necessary that it includes rules of objective reference. In some cases a theory contains, in addition, evidential reference rules, i.e. correspondences between some of its concepts and empirical items. But the test. of any theory requires, rather than operational rules, further theories that can bridge the gap between what the theory refers to (e.g., the passage of a cosmic ray) and its remote symptom (e.g., the click of a counter). The conditions for the semantical consistency are sketched and it is argued that there does not exist a semantically consistency inter-pretation of any of the formalisms of quantum theory. From this analysis arguments in favor of critical realism are drawn.
Scientific realism does not view theoretical terms as mere instruments of experimental predictions; it grants referential status to natural kind terms with 'epistemic access' and view scientific theories and terms as corresponding to physical phenomena and entities which exist independently of observation, and as thereby being the source of objective -approximate and not absolute- knowledge of the physical realm. As a result, scientific realism is accused of ontologising the unobservables. Against this charge, scientific realism posits the idea of the dialectical relation between theoretical terms referring to the unobservables and scientific methods. The second argument made by realism is the ‘no miracle’ thesis. These arguments stand challenged by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The aim of the paper is to examine the relevance of the two arguments of scientific realism in countering the idea that the existence of quantum states in the microphysical world renders realism obsolete.
My aim in this dissertation is to defend a realist interpretation of quantum mechanics.Firstly, I present considerations based on certain general features of theories in the natural sciences which indicate that realism affords a better account of those theories than instrumentalism.In particular, I consider certain issues surrounding the cognitive status of theories, including the role of models, the status of scientific explanation, and the referential character of theoretical terms.Secondly, I develop a detailed realist theory of measurement based on the notion of quantity terms as designators of objective properties of, and relations among, existing entities.I contrast this with the leading instrumentalist theories of measurement, and I argue that the realist theory is the better account of both the logic and practice of scientific measurement.Finally, I consider a number of objections to realism that arise because of certain theoretical features peculiar to quantum mechanics.In the course of this discussion, I consider crucial experimental evidence for the "dual" nature of microentities, various criteria of reality proposed by philosophers of science, the peculiar features of quantum mechanical measurement, and the status of causality in quantum mechanics.I argue that while certain realist viii ix interpretations of the quantum theory, namely the wave and wavicle interpretations, are unsatisfactory, an interpreta tion which construes micro-entities as existing particles is a tenable account.CHAPTER I ignored the considerations which arise at those more general levels of inquiry, but one can not adequately assess the status of quantum mechanics with respect to both realism and instrumentalism apart from those considerations.In the second two chapters of the dissertation, I shall argue that realist interpretations of quantitative theories in the natural sciences are preferable to instrumentalist interpretations.Then in the remainder of the dissertation, I shall go on to argue that realism is tenable at the quantum mechanical level despite the features peculiar to that theory.CHAPTER II THE COGNITIVE STATUS OF THEORIES transitions from one set of experiential statements to another.This view is in marked contrast to that of the realist who regards such terms as referential.This divergence in opinion between realists and instrumentalists about the referential character of theoretical terms leads to a related dispute over the role of models in the inter pretation of scientific theories.Before contrasting the various philosophical positions on this issue, it will be necessary to sort out different senses of the term "model."Upon inspecting the literature surrounding this dispute, it seems that much of the controversy about the role of models stems from a failure to make such distinctions.I will begin this task by distinguishing between 13 model-structures and model-objects.A model-structure is a definitely specifiable schema of mathematical-logical relationships which is exhibited by and can be abstracted from a set of objects.Any set of objects which exhibits a model-structure constitutes a set of model-objects.With respect to any particular scientific theory, there may be a variety of model-objects that scientists employ for various purposes.For example, in the kinetic theory of gases, one can distinguish the following.Firstly, there is the set of molecules themselves, the theoretical entities which we shall 13.For further detail in this regard, see Henry C. Byerly, "Model-Structures and Model-Objects," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.Vol. 20, 1969, pp.135-144.i In fact, if one were to make that claim, I do not see how it could be supported without again falling prey to Maxwell's criticism cited above.And if one is simply troubled by the "ontological risk" involved in asserting the existence of theoretical entities because of the tentativeness of the corresponding theories, it should be noted that the risk of being wrong is a small price to pay for the potentially deeper understanding of nature that scientific theories afford us in the light of realist commitments.
The framework of a simple opposition realism – anti-realism is not enough to analyze the views on the reality of unobservable objects of quantum theory. First, it is necessary to distinguish between realism in relation to the theory and realism in relation to the theory’s objects. Secondly, realism in relation to classical objects can be combined, both with realism and with anti-realism in relation to quantum objects. Third, the concept of “existence” and “to exist objectively” can have different meanings. To take into account these factors, the article describes three approaches: classical realism, quantum anti-realism, and quantum realism. I show that the debate around quantum reality has intensified in recent decades due to a series of new quantum experiments. The current stage of the debate is caused by the second quantum revolution relating to the transfer and processing of quantum information. Classical realism and old versions of quantum anti-realism have become insufficiently effective to explain the results of a series of experiments. Proponents of quantum realism, in turn, refer to the possibility of using the wave function to manipulate quantum objects before their measurement. In conclusion, I assume that not only theoretical discussions but also experiments and new technologies can have a major impact on the seemingly purely philosophical debate about reality.
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.
The EPR controversy between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr about the completeness of the quantum mechanics is one of the most essential contemporary debates in physics with respect to the issue of realism. Initially considered as a though-experiment, the EPR paradox was meant to evidence the inadequacy of quantum mechanics with respect to the traditional leading principle of physics such as locality, independence of the system elements of reality with respect to the observer or semantic reference of theories to elements of the reality in itself. Bell’s mathematical inquiry opened the possibility to empirically discriminate between the view of Bohr and Einstein through the so-called Bell’s inequalities. Based on these inequalities, the experimental test provided in particular by the work of Alain Aspect settled the debate in favor of Bohr and the completeness of quantum mechanics. The previously evident assumption that physical theories are describing the reality in it-self can thus be questioned. Several approaches have been proposed to face that challenge, such as the orthodox quantum physics formulation coupled with the interpretation of Bernard d’Espagnat , the non-local theory of De Broglie-Bohm or the quantum mechanics approach with extended probability of James B. Hartle . In this paper, we consider the idea according to which the field of experiments and measurements on quantum systems is a research context where several epistemic values traditionally leading the scientific activity are in conflict. Instead of conceiving the transition from classical to quantum physics along Thomas Kuhns’ theory of revolutionary paradigm change , characterized by a strong incommensurability between the old and the new approaches, we argue that this epistemological shift could be rationally understood as an incremental evolution of the epistemic values leading scientific activity. As the analysis in this paper aims to show, such a rational reconstruction shows a process of gradual change, where core epistemic values are maintained, while others are broadened to account for the new scientific approaches. The settling of the EPR controversy could be understood as the indication that the previously assumed epistemic values cannot be consistently held together in the quantum context. The values of logical consistency and empirical adequacy remained universally shared, but the controversy leads to question the other traditionally admitted principles, such as the locality, the requirement of semantic references to the reality in itself and the independence of experimental results with respect to the observer, all tightly connected with the realistic conceptions of the world. This first part of the paper characterizes the selected contemporary approaches in quantum context with respect to the modification of the epistemic principles they adopt to restore their consistency. While the de Broglie-Bohm theory explicitly follows the requirement of referring to the reality in itself at the expense of the locality principle, the approaches of d’Espagnat and of Hartle give priority to the values of theoretical framework simplicity and predictive power. In the case of d’Espagnat, the descriptive purpose of the scientific activity remains, but only in a weak objectivity perspective, restricted to the “empirical reality” in which the observer is involved. In the case of Hartle, the extended probability formulation of quantum mechanics is conceived as “an extension of familiar probability theory that incorporates negative probabilities”6, which relies on the Bayesian conception of “probabilities as instruction for betting” (negative probability is thus associated to the instruction “don’t bet”). In a second part, the paper uses this reconstruction of the various theories in order to address the epistemic status of the principles of descriptive power and of independence of the observed system with respect to the observer. In particular, our analysis aims to assess if a reference to the observer is part of the reality description or if such reference is avoidable. This is of prior interest in exploring the main characteristics of a realistic approach that would be applicable in the context of experiments and measurements on quantum systems. In that perspective, we argue that the direct holistic realism, developed by Hilary Putnam in The Threefold Cord , could be a promising intermediate option between a classical realism, which assumes that theoretical structures are describing the reality in it-self, and a more instrumentalist view, focusing mainly on the modeling of the empirical reality as a result of experimental operations while rejecting access to the reality in itself.
A physical theory is a construction of thought which is founded on experience so as to constitute knowledge of the natural world. Propositions in physics are constituted of concepts which express the properties and processes of the physical world. For purposes of record and communication concepts are designated by the terms of a language, such as mathematical symbols, and philosophical discussion may be based on linguistic forms. In this essay, however, the element of discussion will be the concept as a mode of thought through which are grasped the attributes of physical things and the relations exemplified in physical processes. The present philosophical analysis of a physical theory, quantum mechanics, is to be carried out by critical analysis of its basic concepts. In particular, the program is to show that in quantum mechanics the concept of physical object exhibits the characters of discontinuity, complementarity, and relativity.