Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Boston studies in the philosophy of science

Absolute Versus Relative Indeterminism

Evert Jan Post

Published Jan 1, 1995• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-94-015-8410-4_17

Related papers

Relativity and indeterminism

Patrick H. Byrne

Foundations of Physics•Dec 1, 1981•1 citation

Quantum Reprogramming: Ensembles and Single Systems: A Two-Tier Approach to Quantum Mechanics

Evert Jan Post

I. Introductory Remarks. The Copenhagen Era. II. The Psychology of the 1925 Revolution. III. Reassessing Copenhagen. IV. Copenhagen versus Copenhagen. V. Von Neumann, Popper-EPR, Bohm, Bell, Aspect. A Sommerfeld-de Rham View of Single Systems. VI. Period Integrals: A Universal Tool of Physics. VII. Larmor and Cyclotron Aspects of Flux Quanta. VIII. Fitting Period Integrals to Physics. IX. Implications of Cooperative Behavior. X. A Tale of Fine Structure Coincidences. XI. Classical Nonclassical Asymptotics. An Attempt at Cohomological Synthesis. XII. Arrowed Time and Cyclic Time. XIII. Quantum Cohomology. XIV. Optimizing Reduction to Familiar Concepts. Ramifications of the Two-Tier View of Q.M. XV. Compatibility of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. XVI. Quantum Understanding in Global Perspective. XVII. Absolute versus Relative Indeterminism. XVIII. The Diffeo-4 Mandate of Michelson-Sagnac. Epilogue for Extrapolating a Favor of Fortune. Notes and References. Index.

•Mar 14, 2014•10 citations

Indeterminism and Nonlocality

J. S. Bell

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1997•31 citations

Intrinsic indeterminism

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Oct 1, 1993•0 citations

Relational Realism: The Evolution of Ontology to Praxiology in the Philosophy of Nature

Michael Epperson

With the advent of quantum theory, the philosophical distinction between “what appears to be” and “what is reasoned to be” has once again, after several centuries of easy dismissal by classical mechanistic materialism, become an important feature of physics. In recent well-regarded interpretations of quantum physics, including those proposed by Robert Griffiths, Roland Omnès, and Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann, we have seen careful investigations into the physical (i.e., not “merely philosophical”) distinction between the order of contingent causal relation and the order of necessary logical implication. I argue that a careful philosophical exploration of the function of the logical order in modern interpretations of quantum physics compels the abandonment of derivative classical, dualistic understandings of “determinism versus indeterminism,” “logical necessity versus causal contingency,” “subject versus object,” “epistemic versus ontological,” among other fundamental dualisms. The incoherence underlying this classical understanding of these principle-pairs as mutually exclusive features of reality can be relieved if they are instead understood as mutually implicative features of fundamental units of relation or “quantum praxes.”

World Futures•Dec 19, 2008•1 citation

Deterministic Quantum Mechanics versus Classical Mechanical Indeterminism

Mohamed Saladin El Naschie

International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation•Jan 1, 2007•42 citations
I. Introductory Remarks. The Copenhagen Era. II. The Psychology of the 1925 Revolution. III. Reassessing Copenhagen. IV. Copenhagen versus Copenhagen. V. Von Neumann, Popper-EPR, Bohm, Bell, Aspect. A Sommerfeld-de Rham View of Single Systems. VI. Period Integrals: A Universal Tool of Physics. VII. Larmor and Cyclotron Aspects of Flux Quanta. VIII. Fitting Period Integrals to Physics. IX. Implications of Cooperative Behavior. X. A Tale of Fine Structure Coincidences. XI. Classical Nonclassical Asymptotics. An Attempt at Cohomological Synthesis. XII. Arrowed Time and Cyclic Time. XIII. Quantum Cohomology. XIV. Optimizing Reduction to Familiar Concepts. Ramifications of the Two-Tier View of Q.M. XV. Compatibility of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. XVI. Quantum Understanding in Global Perspective. XVII. Absolute versus Relative Indeterminism. XVIII. The Diffeo-4 Mandate of Michelson-Sagnac. Epilogue for Extrapolating a Favor of Fortune. Notes and References. Index.
With the advent of quantum theory, the philosophical distinction between “what appears to be” and “what is reasoned to be” has once again, after several centuries of easy dismissal by classical mechanistic materialism, become an important feature of physics. In recent well-regarded interpretations of quantum physics, including those proposed by Robert Griffiths, Roland Omnès, and Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann, we have seen careful investigations into the physical (i.e., not “merely philosophical”) distinction between the order of contingent causal relation and the order of necessary logical implication. I argue that a careful philosophical exploration of the function of the logical order in modern interpretations of quantum physics compels the abandonment of derivative classical, dualistic understandings of “determinism versus indeterminism,” “logical necessity versus causal contingency,” “subject versus object,” “epistemic versus ontological,” among other fundamental dualisms. The incoherence underlying this classical understanding of these principle-pairs as mutually exclusive features of reality can be relieved if they are instead understood as mutually implicative features of fundamental units of relation or “quantum praxes.”