Before considering the particulars of the different versions of the modal interpretation in the next chapter, I first present their common characteristics. Then I list the starting points from which I develop these modal interpretations to fully-fledged descriptions of reality. Finally, I give the criteria I think interpretations should meet and present a number of desiderata I hope they meet. General characteristics The name ‘modal interpretation’ originates with Van Fraassen (1972) who, in order to interpret quantum mechanics, transposed the semantic analysis of modal logics to the analysis of quantum logic. The resulting interpretation was for obvious reasons called the modal interpretation of quantum logic. Since then, the term modal interpretation has acquired a much more general meaning and lost its direct kinship with modal logics. In particular new interpretations of quantum mechanics developed in the 1980s by Kochen (1985), Krips (1987), Dieks (1988), Healey (1989) and Bub (1992) became known as modal interpretations and also older traditions like Bohmian mechanics (Bohm 1952; Bohm and Hiley 1993) were identified as modal ones. But why are all these interpretations still called modal? And what is the present-day meaning of this term? I think part of the answer to the first question has to do with public relations. The name ‘modal’ is short, sounds nice and is rather intriguing. Furthermore, I guess that also Van Fraassen's prestige as a philosopher of science adds a special gloss to the term. But, apart from all this, I believe the name ‘modal interpretation’ is quite suited.
Before considering the particulars of the different versions of the modal interpretation in the next chapter, I first present their common characteristics. Then I list the starting points from which I develop these modal interpretations to fully-fledged descriptions of reality. Finally, I give the criteria I think interpretations should meet and present a number of desiderata I hope they meet. General characteristics The name ‘modal interpretation’ originates with Van Fraassen (1972) who, in order to interpret quantum mechanics, transposed the semantic analysis of modal logics to the analysis of quantum logic. The resulting interpretation was for obvious reasons called the modal interpretation of quantum logic. Since then, the term modal interpretation has acquired a much more general meaning and lost its direct kinship with modal logics. In particular new interpretations of quantum mechanics developed in the 1980s by Kochen (1985), Krips (1987), Dieks (1988), Healey (1989) and Bub (1992) became known as modal interpretations and also older traditions like Bohmian mechanics (Bohm 1952; Bohm and Hiley 1993) were identified as modal ones. But why are all these interpretations still called modal? And what is the present-day meaning of this term? I think part of the answer to the first question has to do with public relations. The name ‘modal’ is short, sounds nice and is rather intriguing. Furthermore, I guess that also Van Fraassen's prestige as a philosopher of science adds a special gloss to the term. But, apart from all this, I believe the name ‘modal interpretation’ is quite suited.
In the present paper I describe a general formal semantic scheme for the interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) , and on the basis of this scheme I examine the modal interpretation of QM — both the Copenhagen and the anti-Copenhagen variants — proposed by van Fraassen [19, 20, 21], This is intended to be a fragment of a larger work [12] which additionally investigates a number of closely related interpretations, including ones proposed by Bub and Demopoulos [1, 2, 3, 4], Fine [5, 6], and Krips [16, 17]. Formal semantically speaking (see, e.g., Thomason [18]), a logic L may be characterized as an ordered pair <SYN,SEM>, where SYN is the underlying syntax (language) of L, and SEM is the semantics of L, which consists of a class of semantic assignments on SYN.
There is no such thing as “The Quantum Logical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”. Rather, there is a cluster of interpretations, all of which can be described as “quantum logical”. Here I provide a general framework for discussing interpretations of this kind, and then locate various suggestions within it. The presentation owes much to van Fraassen (see, in particular, van Fraassen 1974 ); his “modal interpretation” is one of those I discuss, along with those of Jauch, Putnam and Kochen. I begin by rehearsing some orthodox quantum theory. Within quantum mechanics we deal with a set 0 of measurable quantities, orobservables(position, momentum, components of spin and so on). Experiment can determine the value of an observable for a given system: the values so determined will be real numbers. A maximal amount of information about what the result would be for a given system, whatever experiment we chose to perform on it, is available once we know thestateof the system.
Abstract Since the aim of this book is to introduce the Modal-Hamiltonian Interpretation (MHI) in a comprehensive way, this chapter focuses on the family of Modal Interpretations of quantum mechanics, to which the MHI belongs. The purpose is, then, to recall the common features of the Modal Interpretations as well as the differences between them. In particular, the original proposal of van Fraassen is presented, and the Biorthogonal-Decomposition Modal Interpretation, the Spectral-Decomposition Modal Interpretation, the Atomic Modal Interpretation, and the Perspectival Modal Interpretation are described, pointing out their advantages and limitations.
In this final part I analyse the modal interpretations from a more philosophical point of view. In Chapter 12 I start by arguing that modal interpretations describe noumenal states of affairs and that therefore metaphysically tenable interpretations need only to meet the criteria of Consistency and Internal Completeness. Then I analyse the relations between properties, states and outcomes of measurements in the modal description of reality. I end by discussing how modal interpretations, when restricted to the description of measurement outcomes, recover the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. Chapter 13 concerns the relations between the properties ascribed to composite systems and subsystems. I show that the property ascriptions of the bi and spectral modal interpretations can be characterised as holistic and non-reductionistic, whereas the property ascription of the atomic modal interpretation is non-holistic and to a large extent reductionistic. I argue that notwithstanding the lack of reductionism, the bi and spectral modal interpretations are empirically adequate and metaphysically tenable. I also discuss the possibility of saving the metaphysical tenability of the atomic modal interpretation by taking holistic properties as dispositional properties. In Chapter 14 I give a survey of the possibilities and impossibilities of modal interpretations and in Chapter 15 I end with general conclusions.
In this chapter I introduce the different versions of the modal interpretation, including the three on which I focus in this book. The property ascription of these versions is characterised by the map W α ↦ {〈p j , C α j 〉} j which I call the core property ascription. In the next chapter I discuss how this core property ascription determines the full property ascription W α ↦ The best modal interpretation The best imaginable modal interpretation is, I guess, an interpretation which (A) ascribes at all times all the properties to a system which pertain to that system, and (B) ascribes these properties such that the classical logical relations between the negation, conjunction and disjunction of properties are satisfied. The content of the first requirement (A) is clear: assuming that every projection onto a subspace of a Hilbert space ℋ α represents one and only one property of α, it follows that all sets of definite-valued projections should contain all the projections in ℋ α and that all the maps {. j } j should be maps from all the projections in ℋ α to the values {0,1}. The content of requirement (B) is, however, less clear because there is consensus neither about how to define the negation, conjunction and disjunction of properties in quantum mechanics nor about how to impose the logical relations. In Section 5.1 I present my choice for the definitions of the negation, conjunction and disjunction.
Bas van Fraassen in [4] has recently tried to use modal logic to solve the measurement problem of quantum mechanics. His model is based on a method of expressing quantum states developed by Hugh Everett [1] called the “relative state formulation.” Unfortunately, Everett's mathematics cannot be generalized as van Fraassen requires. The difficulty itself is elementary enough. But a revision of van Fraassen's postulates (such as the one he adopted on p. 341 after he had been told of the problem) can save the mathematics only on pain of making the whole study irrelevant to the physics. I shall explain the dilemma in this note. In a later paper [5], van Fraassen avoids this dilemma by developing an abstract modal interpretation which does not rely on any expression for quantum states.