Probabilities, Causes and Propensities in Physics pp 197-219

Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 347)

Do Dispositions and Propensities Have a Role in the Ontology of Quantum Mechanics? Some Critical Remarks

Chapter

Abstract

In order to tackle the question posed by the title – notoriously answered in the positive, among others, by Heisenberg, Margenau, Popper and Redhead – I first discuss some attempts at distinguishing dispositional from non-dispositional properties, and then relate the distinction to the formalism of quantum mechanics. Since any answer to the question titling the paper must be interpretation-dependent, I review some of the main interpretations of quantum mechanics in order to argue that the ontology of theories regarding ‘wave collapse’ as a genuine physical process could be interpreted as being irreducibly dispositional. In non-collapse interpretations, on the contrary, the appeal to dispositions is simply a way to reformulate the predictive content of the algorithm of the theory in a fancier metaphysical language.

References

  1. Albert D. (1992), Quantum Mechanics and Experience, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allori V., Goldstein S., Tumulka R., and Zanghì N. (2008), On the common structure of Bohmian mechanics and the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber Theory, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59(3), 353–389.Google Scholar
  3. Bell J. S. (1987), Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bell J. S. (1990), Against ’measurement, Physics World, 8, 33–40.Google Scholar
  5. Brandom R. (1994), Making it Explicity, Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Carnap R. (1936), Testability and Meaning, Philosophy of Science, 3(4), 419–471; 4(1) (January 1937): 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clifton, R. and Pagonis, C. (1995), Unremarkable contextualism: Dispositions in the Bohm theory, Foundations of Physics 25(2), 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daumer, M., Dürr D., Goldstein S., and Zanghì N. (1996), Naive realism about operators, Erkenntnis 45, 379–397.Google Scholar
  9. Dirac, P.A. (1930), The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dorato, M. (2005), The Software of the Universe, Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  11. Dorato, M. (2007), Dispositions, relational properties, and the quantum world, In M. Kistler, and Gnassounou, B. (eds.), Dispositions and Causal Powers, Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate, pp. 249–270.Google Scholar
  12. Dorato, M. and Esfeld, M. (2010), GRW as an ontology of dispositions,  Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 2010(41), 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faye, J. (1991), Niels Bohr: His Heritage and Legacy, Dordrecht: KluwerGoogle Scholar
  14. Friedman, M. (1974), Explanation and scientific understanding, Journal of Philosophy, 71, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frigg, R. and Hoefer C. (2007), Probability in GRW, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38, 371–389.Google Scholar
  16. Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini A., and Weber T. (1986), Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems, Physical Review D 34, 470–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldstein, S. (2009), Bohmian mechanics, In E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/qm-bohm/
  18. Hájek, A. (2010), Interpretations of probability, In E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2010 Edition), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/probability-interpret/>
  19. Healey, R. (1989), The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: An Interactive Interpretation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heisenberg W. (1958), Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science, New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  21. Hughes, R. I. G. (1989), The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kitcher, P., (1976), Explanation, conjunction and unification, Journal of Philosophy, 73, 207–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kochen, S. and Specker E. (1967), The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 18, 1015–1021.Google Scholar
  24. Langton, R. and Lewis D. (1998), Defining ‘intrinsic’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58, 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laudisa, F. and Rovelli, C. (2008), Relational quantum mechanics, In E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/qm-relational/>.
  26. Lewis, D. (1983), New work for a theory of universals, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61(4), 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Margenau, H. (1954), Advantages and disadvantages of various interpretations of the quantum theory, Physics Today, 7, 6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maxwell, N. (1988), Quantum propensiton theory: A testable resolution of the wave/particle dilemma, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 39, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mumford, S. (1998), Dispositions, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Murdoch, D. (1987), Niels Bohr’s Philosophy of Physics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Popper, K. (1982), Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, volume III of the postscript to the logic of scientific discovery, London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  32. Redhead, M. (1987), Incompleteness, Non-locality and Realism, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  33. Sellars, W. (1963), Philosophy and the scientific image of man, Science, Perception, and Reality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 1–40.Google Scholar
  34. Shoemaker, S. (1984), Identity, Cause and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Suárez, M. (2004a), On quantum propensities: Two arguments revisited, Erkenntnis, 61, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Suárez, M. (2004b), Quantum selections, propensities, and the problem of measurement, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55, 219–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Suárez, M. (2007), Quantum propensities, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38(2), 418–438. Accessed June 2007.Google Scholar
  38. Tumulka, R. (2006a), A relativistic version of the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber model, Journal of Statistical Physics, 125, 821–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tumulka, R. (2006b), Collapse and relativity, In A. Bassi, Dürr, D., Weber, T., and Zanghì, N. (eds.), Quantum Mechanics: Are there Quantum Jumps? and On the Present Status of Quantum Mechanics, American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings 844, Melville, NY, pp. 340–351.Google Scholar
  40. Van Fraassen B. (1981), A modal interpretation of quantum mechanics, In E. Beltrametti and Van Fraassen, B. (eds.), Current Issues in Quantum Logic, New York, NY: Plenum Press, pp. 229–258.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Rome 3RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations