Abstract Stöltzner coined the expression ‘Vienna indeterminism’ to describe a philosophical tradition centered on the Viennese physicist Exner, serving as the ‘historical link’ between Mach and Boltzmann, on the one hand, and von Mises and Frank, on the other. During the early 1930s debate on quantum mechanics, there was a ‘rapprochement’ between Vienna indeterminism and Schlick’s work on causality. However, it was Cassirer’s 1936 monograph Determinismus und Indeterminismus that showed a full ‘convergence’ with major tenets of Vienna indeterminism: the fundamentality of statistical laws, the frequency interpretation of probability, and the statistical interpretation of the uncertainty relations. Yet, Cassirer used these conceptual tools to pursue ‘in parallel’ different philosophical goals. While for the Viennese quantum mechanics represented a fatal blow to the already discredited notion of ‘causality,’ for Cassirer it challenged the classical notion of ‘substantiality,’ the ideas of ‘particles’ as individual substances endowed with properties. The paper concludes that this ‘parallel convergence’ is the most striking and overlooked aspect of Determinismus und Indeterminismus, serving as the keystone of its argumentative structure.
Abstract Stöltzner coined the expression ‘Vienna indeterminism’ to describe a philosophical tradition centered on the Viennese physicist Exner, serving as the ‘historical link’ between Mach and Boltzmann, on the one hand, and von Mises and Frank, on the other. During the early 1930s debate on quantum mechanics, there was a ‘rapprochement’ between Vienna indeterminism and Schlick’s work on causality. However, it was Cassirer’s 1936 monograph Determinismus und Indeterminismus that showed a full ‘convergence’ with major tenets of Vienna indeterminism: the fundamentality of statistical laws, the frequency interpretation of probability, and the statistical interpretation of the uncertainty relations. Yet, Cassirer used these conceptual tools to pursue ‘in parallel’ different philosophical goals. While for the Viennese quantum mechanics represented a fatal blow to the already discredited notion of ‘causality,’ for Cassirer it challenged the classical notion of ‘substantiality,’ the ideas of ‘particles’ as individual substances endowed with properties. The paper concludes that this ‘parallel convergence’ is the most striking and overlooked aspect of Determinismus und Indeterminismus, serving as the keystone of its argumentative structure.
This paper continues an earlier investigation into the philosophical tradition of Vienna Indeterminism until the formation of the Vienna Circle in 1929. It focuses in particular on how Philipp Frank and Richard von Mises were able to contemplate genuine indeterminism in physics before the advent of quantum mechanics. On this account, all apparently deterministic laws could well be the macroscopic limit of indeterministic basic laws valid for the single mirco-events. Philosophically Vienna Indeterminism was launched by Mach's redefinition of causality in terms of functional dependencies. This severed the rigid bond between causality and empirical realism characteristic of the Kantian conception and made possible to adjust the ontology according to the needs of a single theory. The debates between Max Planck and Franz Serafin Exner teach that the indeterminism issue was also a struggle about Boltzmann's philosophical legacy between Vienna and Berlin. Quite in line with Mach's firm empiricism, Vienna Indeterminists rejected any final decision between determinism and indeterminism on the metaphysical level. Once the frequency interpretation had won favor, the empiricist stance, moreover, permitted them to consider mass phenomena as generic observational facts coordinated to statistical collectives and to treat them on a par with moving point particles. The only condition imposed on this ontology was the uniqueness of this coordination, a condition that could be viewed as a late heir of Mach's principle of unique determination which had complemented his relational ontology.
My thesis investigates a debate between Vienna and Berlin about the view that the basic laws of nature are genuinely indeterministic that started long before the advent of quantum mechanics. It involved two different readings of Ludwig Boltzmann's legacy statistical mechanics and two different answers to how causality and ontology ought to be combined. Having adopted Ernst Mach's weak notion of causality, the local Viennese tradition could more easily contemplate ontologies for irreducibly statistical laws that were different from classical physics, while the Berlin tradition departed from Planck's reading of the Kantian tradition, according to which strictly deterministic laws represented an indispensable basis even for probabilistic theories.\nVienna Indeterminism, as I shall call the first reading, became characteristic for a series of physicist-philosophers connected to the Institute of Physics at the University of Vienna, among them Franz Serafin Exner, Erwin Schrödinger, Philipp Frank and Richard von Mises. It involved the acceptance of the highly improbable events admitted by the second law of thermodynamics, an assent to Mach's definition of causality in terms of functional dependencies, an empiricist shift of the burden of proof on the determinist's shoulders, and the adoption of the relative frequency interpretation of probability. Planck and his student Moritz Schlick initially rejected all of these creeds.\nWhile the Viennese reading of Boltzmann's legacy made it possible to accept probabilistic laws as genuine laws years before the advent of quantum mechanics, Schlick had to take a strictly verificationist tack to reconcile his views on probability with the failure of a Kant-inspired notion of causality enforced by the changes in physics. Until his death however, Schlick remained committed to the Spielraum interpretation of Johannes von Kries, compensating his qualified acceptance of indeterminism with an emphasis on the limits of language that were enforced by Heisenberg's uncertainty relations.\nIn view of claims that scientists' abandonment of determinism and causality was triggered, or at least enhanced, by external factors, among them the anti-scientific Weimar milieu and Bohr's power politics, the reconstruction of the philosophical debates between Vienna and Berlin requires historical contextualization. To this end, I initially recapitulate the Forman thesis and the discussions ensuing from it. Most important among them are the recent books of Cushing and Beller that, rejecting Forman's strong claims, nevertheless deny any constructive influence of the scientific aspirations of German physicists on the philosophical debates about causality and indeterminism in the 1920s.\nAgainst this picture, I argue that the philosophical aspirations of physicist-philosophers were rather genuine and followed influential role models, among them Helmholtz and Mach. They represent a characteristic trait of the German-speaking scientific world and were expressed in academic addresses and in the publication of popular writings. After 1913, this philosophical discourse was conducted, to an increasing extent, on the pages of Die Naturwissenschaften. In a separate chapter, I study the role of philosophical and cultural matters in this journal, which can hardly be separated from the personality of its founding editor Arnold Berliner. At about 1930, this discourse among physicist-philosophers partly merged into scientific philosophy, as conducted by Logical Empiricists, and the newly founded Erkenntnis.\nOne of the characteristic features of the discourse among physicist-philosophers was that they were not strictly indebted to philosophical schools but rather willing to form strategic alliances. Such alliances emphasized one philosophical aspect that was considered pivotal at the time which other features, often expressing severe disagreements of content, were played down. This process can be witnessed at the end of the discussion between the Viennese and the Berliners in the 1930s, at a time when Schlick had already become the center of the Vienna Circle. Being confronted with a plethora of "metaphysical" misinterpretations and having taken the linguistic turn, Frank and Schlick formed a strategic alliance on the 1936 Copenhagen Congress for the Unity of Science. It brought them into opposition with Schrödinger's quest for a modification of quantum mechanics, although Schrödinger continued to be a staunch advocate of indeterminism. This year thus signifies the end of the coherence of Vienna Indeterminism, a tradition that reaches back to the publication of Boltzmann's Lectures of Gas Theory.
Determinismus und Indeterminismus in der modernen Physik (DI) is one of Cassirer’s least known and studied works, despite his own assessment as “one of his most important achievements” (Gawronsky 1949, 29). A prominent theme locates quantum mechanics as a yet further step of the tendency within physical theory towards the purely functional theory of the concept and functional characterization of objectivity. In this respect DI can be considered an “update”, like the earlier monograph Zur Einsteinschen Relativitätstheorie: Erkenntnistheoretische Betrachtungen (1921), to Substanzbegriff und Funktionsbegriff (1910), a seminal work considering only classical and pre-relativistic physics. But how does DI cohere with the three volumes of The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms (1923–29) providing a systematic survey of symbolic meanings in diverse aspects of culture, each with its own mode of “objectification” via self-created signs and images? Cassirer’s “phenomenology of cognition” via distinct types of symbolic form locates Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics (1930) as an exemplar within physical theory of purely symbolic thought, a realm of pure relations and their correlated meanings. In particular, Dirac’s characterization of the new notion of “physical state” in quantum mechanics by a “symbolic algebra of observables” severed from particular representations points to a limiting pole of the Bedeutungsfunktion, the third and highest mode of symbolic formation.
Ernst Cassirer's Determinism and Indeterminism in Modern Physics (DI; Cassirer, 1936/1956) constitutes a major but systematically overlooked transformation in the philosophy of quantum mechanics. Against interpretations that treat the text as a late application of his earlier structuralism, this article argues that quantum mechanics forces a fundamental reconstruction of causal order and scientific objectivity. Following the dissolution of Laplacean determinism, causality is no longer directed at ‘things’ in the world, but functions as a regulative demand that experience be rendered intelligible. Accordingly, causal order does not map to a pre-given reality but is progressively constituted from within experience through recursive processes of functional co-ordination (Zuordnung). This reconstruction culminates in a participatory account of objectivity organised through three mutually conditioning levels – measurements, laws, and principles. The upshot is that physical objects emerge as invariant nodes within relational structure; objects are fixed as objective relations. On this basis, the article shows that neither epistemic nor ontic structural realism adequately captures Cassirer's position and develops in response a provisional functional ontology in which a co-ordinating subject and an indeterminate relational domain jointly constitute the transcendental conditions of objectivity. The article concludes by situating DI within a broader participatory tradition in the foundations of physics, arguing that Cassirer's recursive and observer-dependent account of objectivity anticipates key developments in second-order cybernetics and participatory approaches to quantum mechanics.
Abstract Uses a historical approach to explore the extent to which quantum theory mandates indeterminism. Drawing on important examples in the history of physics, it discusses explicitly the crucial distinction – often overlooked in the philosophical literature – between indeterminacy of physical quantities and causal indeterminism. It pursues at a more sophisticated level, issues raised in Ch. 2 concerning determinism and indeterminism in modern science. It concludes that quantum indeterminacy is an objective feature of the world, but that the jury is still out regarding quantum indeterminism.
This article revisits Ernst Cassirer’s philosophy of quantum physics as developed in his last epistemological work Determinismus und Indeterminismus in der modernen Physik (1936), in particular his main thesis which posits that causality can be maintained in quantum theory, provided its object is re-conceptualized. I study the ranking of the principle of causality in Cassirer’s hierarchy of physical knowledge, and show that its role is both constitutive and regulatory. This is linked to Cassirer’s rejection of the Kantian faculty of intuition. I review other characteristics of Cassirer’s conception of physical theory (in particular holism) and analyze in detail how Cassirer manages to shift from an observationalist interpretation of Heisenberg’s relations (negative, as a lack of information) to a constitutive interpretation (positive, as a new definition of the object) of these relations. I conclude by showing that Cassirer’s interpretation of quantum theory is more promising than Friedman’s Kant-inspired « relativized a priori » conception.