Advertisement

European Journal for Philosophy of Science

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 337–359 | Cite as

On the relation between quantum mechanical and neo-mechanistic ontologies and explanatory strategies

  • Meinard Kuhlmann
  • Stuart GlennanEmail author
Original paper in Philosophy of Physics

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Mechanisms Emergence Microphysicalism Classicality Explanation Decoherence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. 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/.
  2. Ball, P. (2011). Physics of life: the dawn of quantum biology. Nature, 474, 272–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Band, Y. B., & Avishai, Y. (2013). Quantum mechanics, with applications to nanotechnology and information science. Oxford: Academic Press (Elsevier).Google Scholar
  4. Batterman, R. (2000). Multiple realizability and universality. British Journal for Philosophy of Science, 51, 115–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain. Oxford: Clarendon Oxford Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Craver, C. F. (2013). Functions and Mechanisms: A Perspectivalist View. Functions: selection and mechanisms, ed. P. Huneman, pp. 133–158. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5304-4.Google Scholar
  9. Darby, G. (2012). Relational holism and Humean supervenience. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63, 773–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darden, L. (2008). Thinking again about biological mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 75(5), 958–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Glennan, S. S. (1996). Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis, 44, 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glennan, S. S. (2002). Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 69, S342–S353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Glennan, S. S. (2010). Mechanisms. In B. Helen, H. Christopher, & M. Peter (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Glennan, S. S. (2011). Singular and general causal relations: a mechanist perspective. In P. McKay Illari, F. Russo, & J. Williamson (Eds.), Causality in the sciences (pp. 789–817). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Hartmann, S. (2008). Modeling high-temperature superconductors: correspondence at bay. In L. Soler (Ed.), Rethinking scientific change. Stabilities, ruptures, incommensurabilities. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. 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/.
  20. Hegerfeldt, G. C. (1998). Instantaneous spreading and Einstein causality in quantum theory. Annalen der Physik, 7, 716–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howard, D. (2004). Who invented the “Copenhagen Interpretation”? A study in mythology. Philosophy of Science, 71, 669–682.Google Scholar
  22. Hüttemann, A. (2005). Explanation, emergence and quantum-entanglement. Philosophy of Science, 72, 114–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Illari, P. M., & Williamson, J. (2012). What is a mechanism? Thinking about mechanisms across the sciences. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2, 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joos, E., Zeh, H. D., Kiefer, C., Giulini, D., Kupsch, J., & Stamatescu, I. O. (2003). Decoherence and the appearance of a classical world in quantum theory. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuhlmann, M. (2010). The ultimate constituents of the material world - in search of an ontology for fundamental physics. Frankfurt: Ontos Publishing House.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuhlmann, M. (2011). Mechanisms in dynamically complex systems. In P. McKay Illari, F. Russo, & J. Williamson (Eds.), Causality in the sciences (pp. 880–906). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Kuhlmann, M. (forthcoming b). Explaining financial markets in terms of complex systems. Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
  29. Ladyman, A., & Ross, D. (2007). Every thing must go: Metaphysics naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Machamer, P. (2004). Activities and causation: the metaphysics and epistemology of mechanisms. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 18(1), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. McKay Illari, P., & Williamson, J. (2011). Mechanisms are real and local. In P. McKay Illari, F. Russo, & J. Williamson (Eds.), Causality in the sciences (pp. 818–844). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Morganti, M. (2009). Ontological priority, fundamentality and monism. Dialectica, 63(3), 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nairz, O., Arndt, M., & Zeilinger, A. (2003). Quantum interference experiments with large molecules. American Journal of Physics, 71, 319–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Neumann, J. von (1932). Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Berlin: Springer. English translation 1955. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Pettit, P. (1993). A definition of physicalism. Analysis, 53, 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reutlinger, A. (forthcoming). Why is there universal macro-behavior? renormalization group explanation as non-causal explanation. Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
  40. Schaffer, J. (2003). Is there a fundamental level? Noûs, 37, 498–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schaffer, J. (2010). Monism. The priority of the whole. Philosophical review, 119, 31–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Scheibe, E. (1973). The Logical analysis of quantum mechanics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  43. Schlosshauer, M. (2007). Decoherence and the quantum-to-classical transition. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Suárez, M. (2007). Quantum propensities. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38, 418–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tabery, J. G. (2004). Synthesizing activities and interactions in the concept of a mechanism. Philosophy of Science, 71(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Teller, P. (1986). Relational holism and quantum mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 37, 71–81.Google Scholar
  47. Tonomura, A., Endo, J., Matsuda, T., Kawasaki, T., & Ezawa, H. (1989). Demonstration of single-electron buildup of an interference pattern. American Journal of Physics, 57, 117–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Woodward, J. (2011). Mechanisms revisited. Synthese, 183(3), 409–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zurek, W. H. (1981). Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: into what mixture does the wave packet collapse? Physical Review, D24, 1516–1525.Google Scholar
  51. Zurek, W. H. (1982). Environment-induced superselections rules. Physical Review, D26, 1862–1880.Google Scholar
  52. Zurek, W. H. (1991). Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical. Physics Today, 44, 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zurek, W. H. (2003). Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75, 715–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Philosophy, Bielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Butler UniversityIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations