© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

Knowledge of the Quantum Domain: An Overlap Strategy

James D. Fraser, Peter Vickers

Published Jun 30, 2022• 7 citations

Abstract

The existence of multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics appears to pose a serious challenge for knowledge claims about the quantum domain. Hoefer argues that a scientific realist epistemology must be abandoned in this context, while Callender argues that the realist’s only option is to break the underdetermination between rival interpretations by appealing to extra-empirical virtues. We develop a different response to the quantum underdetermination problem based on identifying statements about the unobservable that all the major ontic interpretations of quantum mechanics agree on. It is commonly believed that Everettian, Bohmian, and GRW (Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber) quantum mechanics share nothing but empirical content. We argue that while they say very different things about the fundamental nature of quantum systems, they can be understood as agreeing on a plethora of more abstract theoretical claims. In our view, focusing on this descriptive overlap represents the most promising strategy for defending knowledge claims in the quantum domain. We close by considering how this overlap strategy relates to working posits formulations of scientific realism.

DOI: 10.1086/721635

Related papers

The Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics : a pitfall for realism

A. Matzkin, Nvrock

The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics (BM) has been favored as the preferred alternative to standard quantum mechanics on the ground that it allows a realist construal of the quantum world. We examine in the present work whether BM is consistent with scientific realism. Indeed, Bohmian mechanics makes strong ontological claims but accepts in principle the impossibility of generating epistemic warrants in support of its assumptions. We will argue that such a situation gives rise, at best, to an unsolvable underdetermination dilemma. This leads in turn to the following paradox: although Bohmian mechanics has frequently been invoked to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism, its status as a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics hinges nonetheless on nonevidential epistemological arguments traditionally associated with antirealism.

•Feb 1, 2004•0 citations

On the Received Realist View of Quantum Mechanics

Nahuel Sznajderhaus

In this article I defend that an underlying framework exists among those interpretations of quantum mechanics which crucially consider the measurement problem as a central obstacle. I characterise that framework as the Received View on the realist interpretation of quantum mechanics. In particular, I analyse the extent to which two of the most relevant attempts at quantum mechanics, namely, many worlds interpretations and Bohmian mechanics, belong within the Received View. However, I claim that scientific realism in itself does not entail commitment to such a view, and I propose to consider a form of realism that dissolves the measurement problem. It is simply a stripped down version of realism. I derive the methodological questions in this form of realism, speculating that within it a novel realist interpretation of quantum mechanics could be conceived.

•Jan 1, 2016•0 citations

Scientific Realism and the Quantum

French, Steven, Saatsi, Juha

Scientific realism has traditionally maintained that our best scientific theories can be regarded as more or less true and as representing the world as it is (more or less). However, one of our very best current theories—quantum mechanics—has famously resisted such a realist construal, threatening to undermine the realist stance altogether. The chapters in this volume carefully examine this tension and the reasons behind it, including the underdetermination generated by the multiplicity of formulations and interpretations of quantum physics, each presenting a different way the world could be. Authors in this volume offer a range of alternative ways forward: some suggest new articulations of realism, limiting our commitments in one way or another; others attempt to articulate a ‘third way’ between traditional forms of realism and antirealism, or are critical of such attempts. Still others argue that quantum theory itself should be reconceptualised, or at least alternative formulations should be considered in the hope of evading the problems faced by realism. And some examine the nature of these issues when moving beyond quantum mechanics to quantum field theory. Taken together they offer an exciting new set of perspectives on one of the most fundamental questions in the philosophy of modern physics: how can one be a realist about quantum theory, and what does this realism amount to?

Oxford University Press eBooks•Feb 27, 2020•62 citations

Why Quantum Theory is Possibly Wrong

Holger Lyre

Quantum theory is a tremendously successful physical theory, but nevertheless suffers from two serious problems: the measurement problem and the problem of interpretational underdetermination. The latter, however, is largely overlooked as a genuine problem of its own. Both problems concern the doctrine of realism, but pull, quite curiously, into opposite directions. The measurement problem can be captured such that due to scientific realism about quantum theory common sense anti-realism follows, while theory underdetermination usually counts as an argument against scientific realism. I will also consider the more refined distinctions of ontic and epistemic realism and demonstrate that quantum theory in its most viable interpretations conflicts with at least one of the various realism claims. A way out of the conundrum is to come to the bold conclusion that quantum theory is, possibly, wrong (in the realist sense).

•Jan 1, 2010•8 citations

Epistemological remarks about the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber quantum theory

de Stefano, Francesco

We discuss the epistemological features of the Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber proposal to modify quantum mechanics in order to overcome the objectification problem, that means the transition between the quantum and the classical level of description of natural phenomena. We shall show that the GRW is a realistic theory, but in a way quite different from Einstein realism or other kinds of realism proposed in the past, such as the Many World Interpretation or the Bohmian Mechanics.

arXiv:2103.04805•Mar 8, 2021•0 citations

Realism and Underdetermination: Some Clues From the Practices-Up

Alberto Cordero

Recent attempts to turn Standard Quantum Theory into a coherent representational system have improved markedly over previous offerings. Important questions about the nature of material systems remain open, however, as current theorizing effectively resolves into a multiplicity of incompatible statements about the nature of physical systems. Specifically, the most cogent proposals to date land in effective empirical equivalence, reviving old anti-realist fears about quantum physics. In this paper such fears are discussed and found unsound. It is argued that nothing of global skeptical or agnostic significance follows from the kind of underdetermination presently encountered in fundamental quantum theory. The case is instructive, however, for what it shows about the characteristics and prospects of scientific realism as a perspective in contemporary philosophy of science.

Philosophy of Science•Jan 1, 2001•32 citations

The existence of multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics appears to pose a serious challenge for knowledge claims about the quantum domain. Hoefer argues that a scientific realist epistemology must be abandoned in this context, while Callender argues that the realist’s only option is to break the underdetermination between rival interpretations by appealing to extra-empirical virtues. We develop a different response to the quantum underdetermination problem based on identifying statements about the unobservable that all the major ontic interpretations of quantum mechanics agree on. It is commonly believed that Everettian, Bohmian, and GRW (Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber) quantum mechanics share nothing but empirical content. We argue that while they say very different things about the fundamental nature of quantum systems, they can be understood as agreeing on a plethora of more abstract theoretical claims. In our view, focusing on this descriptive overlap represents the most promising strategy for defending knowledge claims in the quantum domain. We close by considering how this overlap strategy relates to working posits formulations of scientific realism.

The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics (BM) has been favored as the preferred alternative to standard quantum mechanics on the ground that it allows a realist construal of the quantum world. We examine in the present work whether BM is consistent with scientific realism. Indeed, Bohmian mechanics makes strong ontological claims but accepts in principle the impossibility of generating epistemic warrants in support of its assumptions. We will argue that such a situation gives rise, at best, to an unsolvable underdetermination dilemma. This leads in turn to the following paradox: although Bohmian mechanics has frequently been invoked to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism, its status as a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics hinges nonetheless on nonevidential epistemological arguments traditionally associated with antirealism.

In this article I defend that an underlying framework exists among those interpretations of quantum mechanics which crucially consider the measurement problem as a central obstacle. I characterise that framework as the Received View on the realist interpretation of quantum mechanics. In particular, I analyse the extent to which two of the most relevant attempts at quantum mechanics, namely, many worlds interpretations and Bohmian mechanics, belong within the Received View. However, I claim that scientific realism in itself does not entail commitment to such a view, and I propose to consider a form of realism that dissolves the measurement problem. It is simply a stripped down version of realism. I derive the methodological questions in this form of realism, speculating that within it a novel realist interpretation of quantum mechanics could be conceived.

Scientific realism has traditionally maintained that our best scientific theories can be regarded as more or less true and as representing the world as it is (more or less). However, one of our very best current theories—quantum mechanics—has famously resisted such a realist construal, threatening to undermine the realist stance altogether. The chapters in this volume carefully examine this tension and the reasons behind it, including the underdetermination generated by the multiplicity of formulations and interpretations of quantum physics, each presenting a different way the world could be. Authors in this volume offer a range of alternative ways forward: some suggest new articulations of realism, limiting our commitments in one way or another; others attempt to articulate a ‘third way’ between traditional forms of realism and antirealism, or are critical of such attempts. Still others argue that quantum theory itself should be reconceptualised, or at least alternative formulations should be considered in the hope of evading the problems faced by realism. And some examine the nature of these issues when moving beyond quantum mechanics to quantum field theory. Taken together they offer an exciting new set of perspectives on one of the most fundamental questions in the philosophy of modern physics: how can one be a realist about quantum theory, and what does this realism amount to?

Quantum theory is a tremendously successful physical theory, but nevertheless suffers from two serious problems: the measurement problem and the problem of interpretational underdetermination. The latter, however, is largely overlooked as a genuine problem of its own. Both problems concern the doctrine of realism, but pull, quite curiously, into opposite directions. The measurement problem can be captured such that due to scientific realism about quantum theory common sense anti-realism follows, while theory underdetermination usually counts as an argument against scientific realism. I will also consider the more refined distinctions of ontic and epistemic realism and demonstrate that quantum theory in its most viable interpretations conflicts with at least one of the various realism claims. A way out of the conundrum is to come to the bold conclusion that quantum theory is, possibly, wrong (in the realist sense).

Recent attempts to turn Standard Quantum Theory into a coherent representational system have improved markedly over previous offerings. Important questions about the nature of material systems remain open, however, as current theorizing effectively resolves into a multiplicity of incompatible statements about the nature of physical systems. Specifically, the most cogent proposals to date land in effective empirical equivalence, reviving old anti-realist fears about quantum physics. In this paper such fears are discussed and found unsound. It is argued that nothing of global skeptical or agnostic significance follows from the kind of underdetermination presently encountered in fundamental quantum theory. The case is instructive, however, for what it shows about the characteristics and prospects of scientific realism as a perspective in contemporary philosophy of science.