Classicality First: Why Zurek’s Existential Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Implies Copenhagen
Most interpretations of Quantum Mechanics alternative to Copenhagen interpretation try to avoid the dualistic flavor of the latter. One of the basic goals of the former is to avoid the ad hoc introduction of observers and observations as an inevitable presupposition of physics. Non-Copenhagen interpretations usually trust in decoherence as a necessary mechanism to obtain a well-defined, observer-free transition from a unitary quantum description of the universe to classicality. Even though decoherence does not solve the problem of the definite outcomes, it helps to explain why we do not observe superpositions and, according to Zurek’s existential interpretation, why a specific preferred basis emerges through system–environment interactions. The aim of this paper is to show why such interpretation ends up begging the question and provides little progress in understanding the quantum-to-classical transition; the ultimate reason being that preferred bases always correlate to human observation. Benefitting from the technical discussion, some remarks will be offered in the last section regarding the role of classical observations as a necessary condition to make workable the formalism of Quantum Mechanics and scientific activity itself.
KeywordsClassicality Zurek’s existential interpretation Copenhagen interpretation Preferred basis Predictive sieve Quantum-to-classical transition
- Bacciagaluppi, G. (2016). The role of decoherence in quantum mechanics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/qm-decoherence/. Accessed 5 Sept 2018.
- Bokulich, A. (2014). Bohr’s correspondence principle. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/bohr-correspondence/. Accessed 5 Sept 2018.
- Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219.Google Scholar
- Dewar, R. C., Lineweaver, C. H., Niven, R. K., & Regenauer-Lieb, K. (2014). Beyond the second law: An overview. In R. C. Dewar, C. H. Lineweaver, R. K. Niven, & K. Regenauer-Lieb (Eds.), Beyond the second law. Entropy production and non-equilibrium systems (pp. 15–27). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Faye, J. (2014). Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/qm-copenhagen/. Accessed 5 Sept 2018.
- Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and philosophy. The revolution in modern science. London: Unwin University Books.Google Scholar
- Landsman, N. P. (2007). Between classical and quantum. In J. Butterfield & J. Earman (Eds.), Handbook of the philosophy of science: Philosophy of physics (pp. 417–553). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Lombardi, O., Fortín, S., & Castagnino, M. (2012). The problem of identifying the system and the environment in the phenomenon of decoherence. In H. W. de Regt, S. Hartmann, & S. Okasha (Eds.), The european philosophy of science association proceedings: Amsterdam 2009 (pp. 161–174). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Penrose, R. (2004). The road to reality. A complete guide to the laws of the universe. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
- Sánchez-Cañizares, J. (2014). The mind-brain problem and the measurement paradox of quantum mechanics: Should we disentangle them? NeuroQuantology, 12(1), 76–95.Google Scholar
- Schlosshauer, M. (2007). Decoherence and the quantum-to-classical transition. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
- Wallace, D. (2008). Philosophy of quantum mechanics. In D. Rickles (Ed.), The ashgate companion to the new philosophy of physics (pp. 16–98). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
- Zurek, W. H. (2002). Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical—revisited. Los Alamos Science, 27, 86–109.Google Scholar