Abstract It is a tenet of Copenhagen faith that it is meaningless to say that an electron or other microscopic entity has a position, velocity, or other similar magnitude in the absence of an experimental arrangement capable of measuring its value. Many philosophers will regard this tenet as mistaken, locating the error in a crude operationalism or verificationism. But related constraints on quantum meaning follow naturally from a more promising inferentialist account of content like that of Brandom. Respecting these constraints enables one to purify quantum theory of talk of “measurement,” resolve puzzlement over the ontology of a quantum field theory, and answer Einstein’s question “Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it?”
Abstract It is a tenet of Copenhagen faith that it is meaningless to say that an electron or other microscopic entity has a position, velocity, or other similar magnitude in the absence of an experimental arrangement capable of measuring its value. Many philosophers will regard this tenet as mistaken, locating the error in a crude operationalism or verificationism. But related constraints on quantum meaning follow naturally from a more promising inferentialist account of content like that of Brandom. Respecting these constraints enables one to purify quantum theory of talk of “measurement,” resolve puzzlement over the ontology of a quantum field theory, and answer Einstein’s question “Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it?”
Ever since its birth following the introduction of Planck's constant h in 1900, quantum theory has been legitimated only by the amazing capacity it has exhibited in accounting quantitatively for a huge variety of physical phenomena. The so-called Copenhagen interpretation has allowed to accomodate in a coherent frame the tenets of quantum mechanics, but at the cost of bringing in the demand of abandoning, at the microscopic level, causality, determinism, and physical reality. The results of Aspect and coworkers' ingenious experiments, however, can give further support to the belief in the unlimited validity of the quantum theory. But, for all its successes, the theory remains basically incomprehensible.
Introduction Although the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics was understood within a few years after it was invented, numerous quantum paradoxes still disturb ‘simple-minded’ physicists. Most of them, as ‘naïve realists’, would probably never take Bohr's own over-philosophical and over-complicated treatment of these paradoxes seriously if they realized the philosophical consequences of the Copenhagen interpretation. To make my meaning clearer, let me quote Bohr's answer to Professor Hoffding's question regarding the double-slit experiment [1]. Bohr was asked: ‘What can the electron be said to be in its travel from the point of entry to the point of detection?’ And he replied: ‘ To be ? To be ? What does it mean to be ?’ However, if one questions the existence of microscopic constituents of macroscopic bodies, then the next logical step would be to question the existence of the macroscopic bodies and even ourselves. Needless to say, very few (if any) of us, when making experiments or analyzing their results, address the question of what it means ‘to be’ every time. Even in the context of elementary particles, probably nobody doubts that the particles exist and somehow travel from the point of entry to the point of detection. Moreover, within the accuracy allowed by the uncertainty relation, these particles can be localized and described just as well as macroscopic ‘classical’ objects.
Quantum theory launched a revolution in twentieth-century physics. But we have yet to appreciate the revolution’s significance for philosophy. Most studies of the conceptual foundations of quantum theory first try to interpret the theory—to say how the world could possibly be the way the theory says it is. But, though fundamental, quantum theory is enormously successful without describing the world in its own terms. When properly applied, models of quantum theory offer good advice on the significance and credibility of claims about the world expressed in other terms. This first of several philosophical lessons of the quantum revolution dissolves the quantum measurement problem. Pragmatist treatments of probability and causation show how quantum theory may be used to explain the non-localized correlations that have been thought to involve ‘spooky’ instantaneous action at a distance. Given environmental decoherence, a pragmatist inferentialist approach to content shows when talk of quantum probabilities is licensed, resolves any residual worries about whether a quantum measurement has a determinate outcome, and solves a dilemma about the ontology of a quantum field theory. This approach to meaning and reference also reveals the nature and limits of objective description in the light of quantum theory. While these pragmatist approaches to probability, causation, explanation, and content may be independently motivated by philosophical argument, their successful application here illustrates their practical importance in helping philosophers come to terms with the quantum revolution.
For many years the physical interpretation of quantum theory has been dominated by the “wave-particle duality” attitude of the “Copenhagen school.” This point of view is eloquently described in Bohr's collection of essays on the subject. Despite persistent concerns with apparent paradoxes and limitations to this interpretation (as exemplified by Schrodinger's cat, the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, among others), the Copenhagen view persists de facto in the daily life of the modern physicist. Traditional quantum theory has so successfully explained such a vast amount of data in atomic and molecular physics, solid state physics (and to a lesser extent, elementary particle physics) that little doubt can exist concerning its essential validity. As a consequence of the overwhelming practical success of the “Copenhagen interpretation, ” the latter has acquired the status of dogma. For many years, therefore, most physicists have found it expedient to relegate the puzzling aspects of the theory to philosophers, and mathematicians. Nevertheless, a persistent interest in this subject has produced a significant and fascinating literature, reviewed by Jammer. In recent years, concerns over the proper meaning to be ascribed to quantum theory have produced an increasingly deep and incisive series of investigations. These investigations fall generally into two categories: either (1) discussion of the philosophical content of the theory, or (2) analyses of the mathematical variants of the theory and their connection with differing interpretational schemes. Physicists tend to be detached from a commitment to philosophical issues, because of their realization of the transient character of the meanings attached to theories of the day. As a simple illustration of this we can mention the profound differences between nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics.
Traditionally, to be a realist about something means believing in the independent existence of that something. In this line of thought, a scientific realist is someone who believes in the objective existence of the entities postulated by our best scientific theories. In metaphysical terms, what does that mean? In ontological terms, i.e., in terms about what exists, scientific realism can be understood as involving the adoption of an ontology that is scientifically informed. But according to some philosophers, the realistic attitude must go beyond ontology. The way in which this requirement has been understood involves providing a metaphysics for the entities postulated by science, that is, answering questions about the nature of what ontology admits to exist. We discuss how two fashionable approaches face the challenge of providing a metaphysics for science: a form of naturalism and the Viking/Toolbox approach. Finally, we present a third way, which adopts the best of both approaches: the meta-Popperian method, which focuses on discarding the wrong alternatives, or better saying, the metaphysical profiles incompatible with certain theories. We present the meta-Popperian method, a metametaphysical method capable of objectively assessing which metaphysical profiles are incompatible with certain scientific theories. For this, we will use quantum mechanics as a case study, presenting some previously obtained results. As our focus is on methodological questions about the relationship between metaphysics and science; with this method, we can see how science can be used to avoid error in metaphysical issues. In our opinion, this would be a way to develop a productive relationship between science and metaphysics.
The basic thesis of this book is that there is no quantum measurement problem. I do not mean by this that the apparent paradoxes of quantum mechanics arise because we fail to recognize ‘that quantum theory does not describe physical reality’ (Fuchs and Peres 2000a). Quantum theory describes reality just fine, like any other scientific theory worth taking seriously: describing (and explaining) reality is what the scientific enterprise is about. Nor do I mean that we have found solutions to the problem, ways to modify or supplement quantum mechanics so that the paradoxes are removed. I don’t actually think that we have found any very satisfactory solutions in this sense (at least not in the relativistic domain) but that isn’t my theme: even if we did have these modifications, they would be ways of changing from quantum physics, which supposedly does have a measurement problem, to some other theory, which supposedly doesn’t.