On the relation between quantum mechanical and neo-mechanistic ontologies and explanatory strategies
- 227 Downloads
Advocates of the New Mechanicism in philosophy of science argue that scientific explanation often consists in describing mechanisms responsible for natural phenomena. Despite its successes, one might think that this approach does not square with the ontological strictures of quantum mechanics. New Mechanists suppose that mechanisms are composed of objects with definite properties, which are interconnected via local causal interactions. Quantum mechanics calls these suppositions into question. Since mechanisms are hierarchical it appears that even macroscopic mechanisms must supervene on a set of “objects” that behave non-classically. In this paper we argue, in part by appeal to the theory of quantum decoherence, that the universal validity of quantum mechanics does not undermine neo-mechanistic ontological and explanatory claims as they occur within in classical domains. Additionally, we argue that by relaxation of certain classical assumptions, mechanistic explanatory strategies can sometimes be carried over into the quantum domain.
KeywordsMechanisms Emergence Microphysicalism Classicality Explanation Decoherence
We thank Laura Felline, Helmut Fink, Thorben Petersen and Manfred Stöckler for discussions and comments on earlier drafts. We are also grateful to two anonymous referees whose feedback much improved this paper.
- Bacciagaluppi, G. (2012). The role of decoherence in quantum mechanics. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2012 Edition), E. N. Zalta (Ed). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/qm-decoherence/.
- Band, Y. B., & Avishai, Y. (2013). Quantum mechanics, with applications to nanotechnology and information science. Oxford: Academic Press (Elsevier).Google Scholar
- Bechtel, W. & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: a mechanist alternative. Studies in the history and philosophy of biology and the biomedical sciences 36(2): 421–441.Google Scholar
- Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (1993). Discovering complexity: decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
- Dorato, M., & Felline, L. (2011). Scientific explanation and scientific structuralism. In A. Bokulich & P. Bokulich (Eds.), Scientific structuralism (pp. 161–176). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Glennan, S. S. (2008). Mechanisms. In M. Curd & S. Psillos (Eds.), Routledge companion to the philosophy of science (pp. 376–384). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Glennan, S. S. (2010). Mechanisms. In B. Helen, H. Christopher, & M. Peter (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Halvorson, H., & Clifton R. (2002). No place for particles in relativistic quantum theories? Philosophy of science, 69: 1–28; reprinted in Ontological Aspects of Quantum Field Theory, M. Kuhlmann, H. Lyre & A. Wayne (Eds.). London: World Scientific Publishing, 2002.Google Scholar
- Hartmann, S. (2008). Modeling high-temperature superconductors: correspondence at bay. In L. Soler (Ed.), Rethinking scientific change. Stabilities, ruptures, incommensurabilities. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Healey, R. (2009). Holism and nonseparability in physics. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition), E. N. Zalta (Ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/physics-holism/.
- Howard, D. (2004). Who invented the “Copenhagen Interpretation”? A study in mythology. Philosophy of Science, 71, 669–682.Google Scholar
- Kuhlmann, M. (forthcoming a). A mechanistic reading of quantum laser theory, in: (ed.): Why is more different? Philosophical issues in condensed matter physics and complex systems, eds. Brigitte Falkenburg and Margaret Morrison. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Kuhlmann, M. (forthcoming b). Explaining financial markets in terms of complex systems. Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
- Landsman, N. P. (2007). In J. Butterfield & J. Earman (Eds.), Between classical and quantum. Handbook of the philosophy of science, Vol. 2: Philosophy of physics (pp. 417–554). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Maudlin, T. (1998). Part and whole in quantum mechanics. In E. Castellani (Ed.), Interpreting bodies: classical and quantum objects in modern physics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Neumann, J. von (1932). Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Berlin: Springer. English translation 1955. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Reutlinger, A. (forthcoming). Why is there universal macro-behavior? renormalization group explanation as non-causal explanation. Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
- Scheibe, E. (1973). The Logical analysis of quantum mechanics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
- Schlosshauer, M. (2007). Decoherence and the quantum-to-classical transition. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
- Teller, P. (1986). Relational holism and quantum mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 37, 71–81.Google Scholar
- Wallace, D. (2012). Decoherence and its role in the modern measurement problem. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A, 370, 4576–4593.Google Scholar
- Zurek, W. H. (1981). Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: into what mixture does the wave packet collapse? Physical Review, D24, 1516–1525.Google Scholar
- Zurek, W. H. (1982). Environment-induced superselections rules. Physical Review, D26, 1862–1880.Google Scholar
- Zurek, W. H. (2007). Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical - Revisited. In B. Duplantier, J.-M. Raimond, & V. Rivasseau (Eds.), Quantum Decoherence (Progress in Mathematical Physics, vol. 48) (pp. 1–31). Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar