Advertisement

The Controversy between Schrödinger and the Göttingen-Copenhagen Physicists in the 1950’s

  • Michel Bitbol
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 188)

Abstract

When surveying the literature, one often gets the impression that Schrödinger held, in succession, four distinct interpretations of quantum mechanics, and that, except for the one he borrowed from the Copenhagen group, these interpretations all fell into a complete and deserved oblivion. People generally recognize the great importance of his contributions to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. But what they regard as important here are, as a rule, only the lines of argument and ingenious thought-experiments by which Schrödinger challenged the current orthodoxy, thus forcing his contemporaries to clarify their positions. On the face of it, none of Schrödinger’s own positive suggestions appear to have had any lasting influence. Let us then begin with a brief statement of this widespread view of Schrödinger’s philosophy of quantum mechanics, especially as originally stated in the writings of such contemporaries as Heisenberg and Born, before we subject it to critical scrutiny.

Keywords

Quantum Mechanic Wave Mechanic Copenhagen Interpretation Quantum Jump Geiger Counter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1a.
    E. Schrödinger, “Quantization as a problem of proper values” (I and II), in: Collected papers on wave mechanics, Blackie and son, 1928. For a valuable assessment on the possibility of holding this Schrödinger’s initial position nowadays,Google Scholar
  2. 1b.
    see J. Dorling, “Schrödinger’s original interpretation of the Schrödinger equation: a rescue attempt”, in: C.W. Kilmister (ed.), Schrödinger, centenary celebration of a polymath, Cambridge University Press, 1987Google Scholar
  3. 1c.
    The two papers are: A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?” Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780, 1935;Google Scholar
  4. 1d.
    E. Schrödinger, “Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik”, Naturwissenschaften, 23, 807–812, 823–828, 844–849, 1935.Google Scholar
  5. 1e.
    They are both reprinted, in English translation, in: J. A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek, Quantum mechanics and measurement, Princeton University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  6. 2.
    E. Schrödinger, “Discussion of probability relations between separated systems”, Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc., 31, 555–563, 1935Google Scholar
  7. 3.
    Quoted by: K.V. Laurikainen, Beyond the atom, Springer-Verlag, 1988, p. 31Google Scholar
  8. 4a.
    W. Pauli, letter to M. Born, quoted by M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, Brit. J. Phil. Sci., 4, 95–106, 1953.Google Scholar
  9. 4b.
    Reprinted in: M. Born, Physics in my generation, Pergamon Press, 1956Google Scholar
  10. 1.
    E. Schrödinger, “Are there quantum jumps?”, Brit. J. Phil. Sci., 3, 109–123, 233–242, 1952;Google Scholar
  11. 1b.
    M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit. Brit. J. Phil. Sci., 3, 109–123, 233–242, 1952Google Scholar
  12. 2.
    M. Born (ed.), The Born-Einstein letters, Mac Millan, 1971Google Scholar
  13. 3.
    M. Born (ed.), The Born-Einstein letters, op. cit. p. 196Google Scholar
  14. 4.
    M. Born, in: Physicalische Blätter, 17, 85–87, 1961Google Scholar
  15. 5.
    M. Born (ed.), The Born-Einstein letters, op. cit. p. 195Google Scholar
  16. 6.
    M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit. p. 96Google Scholar
  17. 7.
    M. Born (ed.), The Born-Einstein letters, op. cit. p. 202Google Scholar
  18. 8.
    M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit. p. 100Google Scholar
  19. 9.
    M. Born (ed.), The Born-Einstein letters, op. cit. p. 195Google Scholar
  20. 10.
    M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit. p. 105Google Scholar
  21. 1.
    M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit. p. 104Google Scholar
  22. 2.
    M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit. p. 102Google Scholar
  23. 4.
    M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit. p. 99Google Scholar
  24. 5a.
    M. Born, “Physical reality”, Phil. Quart., 3, 139–49, 1953.Google Scholar
  25. 5b.
    Reprinted in: M. Born, Physics in my generation, Pergamon Press, 1956Google Scholar
  26. 6.
    M. Born (ed.), The Born-Einstein letters, op. cit. p. 202Google Scholar
  27. 1.
  28. 2.
    M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit. p. 98Google Scholar
  29. 3.
  30. 4.
    W. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, Harper and Brothers, 1958Google Scholar
  31. 5.
    W. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, op. cit. p. 143Google Scholar
  32. 1.
    E. Schrödinger, “Are there quantum jumps?”, loc. cit.Google Scholar
  33. 2.
    M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit.Google Scholar
  34. 1.
    E. Schrödinger, “Discussion of probability relations between separated systems”, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc, 31, 555–563, 1935Google Scholar
  35. 2.
    E. Schrödinger, “The exchange of energy according to wave mechanics”, in: Collected papers on wave mechanics, Blackie & son, 1928, p. 137–146Google Scholar
  36. 3.
    E. Schrödinger, “The meaning of wave mechanics”, in: A. George (ed.), Louis de Broglie physicien et penseur, Albin Michel, 1953Google Scholar
  37. 1.
    E. Schrödinger, Statistical Thermodynamics, Cambridge University Press, 1944, chapter VII.Google Scholar
  38. 2a.
    E. Schrödinger, letter to P. Jordan, July 28, 1927;Google Scholar
  39. 2b.
    quoted by: O. Darrigol, “The origin of quantized matter waves”, H.S.P.S., 16, 197–239, 1986Google Scholar
  40. 3.
    O. Darrigol, “The origin of quantized matter waves”, loc. cit.Google Scholar
  41. 4.
    Letter of P. Jordan to E. Schrödinger, summer 1927, quoted by: O. Darrigol, “The origin of quantized matter waves”, loc. cit.Google Scholar
  42. 5.
    E. Schrödinger, in: Electrons et photons, 5th Solvay conference (1927), Paris 1928, p. 208Google Scholar
  43. 6.
    M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit.Google Scholar
  44. 1.
    E. Schrödinger, “Are there quantum jumps?”, loc. cit.Google Scholar
  45. 2.
    M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit.Google Scholar
  46. 1.
  47. 2.
  48. 1.
    E. Schrödinger, Science and Humanism, Cambridge University Press, 1951, p. 39–41Google Scholar
  49. 2a.
    E. Schrödinger, “Probability relations between separated systems”, loc. cit.;Google Scholar
  50. 2b.
    E. Schrödinger, ‘The present situation in quantum mechanics”, in: J.A. Wheeler & W.H. Zurek (eds.), Quantum theory and measurement, op. cit.;Google Scholar
  51. 2c.
    E. Schrödinger, Transformation and interpretation in quantum mechanics, (Dublin seminar 1952),Google Scholar
  52. 2c.
    E. Schrödinger, The interpretation of quantum mechanics (Dublin seminars 1949–1955 and other unpublished texts), edited and with introduction by M. Bitbol, Ox Bow Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  53. 3.
    E. Schrödinger, Dublin seminar, July 1952 colloquium (in: E. Schrödinger, The interpretation of quantum mechanics (Dublin seminars 1949–1955 and other unpublished texts), op. cit. p. 19–20), and E. Schrödinger, “Are there quantum jumps?”, loc. cit.Google Scholar
  54. 4a.
    See E. Schrödinger, Nature and the Greeks, Cambridge University Press, 1954, Chapter VII;Google Scholar
  55. 4b.
    E. Schrödinger, William James lectures (c. 1954), 3rd lecture, (in: E. Schrödinger, The interpretation of quantum mechanics (Dublin seminars 1949–1955 and other unpublished texts), op. cit. p. 145–149).Google Scholar
  56. 5.
    E. Schrödinger, The problem of matter in quantum mechanics, Notes for seminar 1949, (in: E. Schrödinger, The interpretation of quantum mechanics (Dublin seminars 1949–1955 and other unpublished texts), op. cit. p. 97).Google Scholar
  57. 6a.
    See W.H. Zurek, “Environment-induced superselection rules”, Phys. Rev. D26, 1862–1880, 1982;Google Scholar
  58. 6b.
    B. d’Espagnat, “Towards an empirical separable reality?” Found. Phys. 20, 1147–1172, 1990. As we shall see later on (paragraphs 4–3, 4–5, 6–8), Schrödinger’s final views on the measurement problem were however quite unlike the theories of decoherence.Google Scholar
  59. 1a.
    See, for instance: Y. Ben-Menahem, “Struggling with realism: Schrödinger’s case”, in: M. Bitbol and O. Darrigol (eds.), Erwin Schrödinger, Philosophy and the birth of quantum mechanics, Editions Frontières, 1993.Google Scholar
  60. 1b.
    M.F Melgar “The philosophy of Erwin Schrödinger: a diachronic view of Schrödinger’s thought”, Found. Phys., 18, 357–371, 1988) has underlined the disarray of most commentators when they are confronted to the question “was Schrödinger a realist or an idealist?”.Google Scholar
  61. 1c.
    See also chapter II-2 of M. Bitbol, L’élision, in: E. Schrödinger, L’esprit et la matière, Seuil, 1990.Google Scholar
  62. 2.
    E. Schrödinger, My view of the world, Cambridge University Press, 1964Google Scholar
  63. 3.
    E. Schrödinger, My view of the world, op. cit. p. 64Google Scholar
  64. 4.
    ibid. p. 68Google Scholar
  65. 5.
    E. Schrödinger, Mind and Matter, in: What is life? and Mind and matter, Cambridge University Press, 1967, p. 137.Google Scholar
  66. 1.
    E. Schrödinger, The seek of the road, in: My view of the world, op. cit.Google Scholar
  67. 2.
    M. Bitbol, L’élision, in: E. Schrödinger, L’esprit et la matière, précédé de L’élision par M. Bitbol, Seuil, 1990.Google Scholar
  68. 3.
    E. Schrödinger, “Quantization and proper values, IV”, in: Collected papers on wave mechanics, Blackie and son, 1928Google Scholar
  69. 4.
    E. Schrödinger to A. Einstein, November 18 1950, in: K. Przibram, Letters on wave mechanics, (Tr. M.J. Klein), Philosophical Library, 1967 p. 37Google Scholar
  70. 5.
    ibid. p. 38Google Scholar
  71. 6.
    E. Schrödinger, Nature and the Greeks, op. cit. p. 92Google Scholar
  72. 7.
    E. Schrödinger, Nature and the Greeks, op. cit.Google Scholar
  73. 8.
    E. Schrödinger, My view of the world, op. cit. p. 64Google Scholar
  74. 9.
    E. Schrödinger to A. Einstein, November 18 1950, in: K. Przibram, Letters on wave mechanics, (Tr. M.J. Klein), op. cit. p. 38Google Scholar
  75. 1.
  76. 2.
    E. Schrödinger, Science and Humanism, op. cit. p. 40Google Scholar
  77. 39.
    E. Schrödinger, “Might perhaps energy be merely a statistical concept?”, Nuovo cimento, , 162–170, 1958Google Scholar
  78. 4.
    L. Wessels, Schrödinger’s interpretations of wave mechanics, Ph. D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1975Google Scholar
  79. 5.
    W. Heisenberg, Physics and philosophy, op. cit. p. 145Google Scholar
  80. 1.
    ibid. p. 144Google Scholar
  81. 2.
    E. Schrödinger, William James lectures (c. 1954), 3rd lecture (in: E. Schrödinger, The interpretation of quantum mechanics (Dublin seminars 1949–1955 and other unpublished texts), op. cit. p. 149). See chapter 5.Google Scholar
  82. 3a.
    M. Born, Natural philosophy of cause and chance, Oxford University Press, 1949, p. 125, 209;Google Scholar
  83. 3b.
    M. Born, “Physical reality”, Phil. Quart., 3, 139–149, 1953Google Scholar
  84. 5.
    E. Schrödinger, Science and the Human temperament, G. Allen & Unwin, 1935, p. 109Google Scholar
  85. 6.
    ibid. p. 118Google Scholar
  86. 1.
    bid. p. 115Google Scholar
  87. 2.
    ibid. p. 118Google Scholar
  88. 3a.
    W.T. Scott, Erwin Schrödinger, University of Massachusetts Press, 1967 p. 50;Google Scholar
  89. 3b.
    V.V. Raman & P. Forman, “Why was it Schrödinger who developed de Broglie’s ideas?”, HSPS, 1, 291–314, 1969Google Scholar
  90. 4.
    In: K. Przibram, Letters on wave mechanics, (Tr. M.J. Klein), op. cit.Google Scholar
  91. 5.
    Y. Ben-Menahem, “Struggling with causality: Schrodinger’s case”, Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci., 20, 307–334, 1989Google Scholar
  92. 6a.
    E. Schrödinger, “The law of chance” (1929), in: Science and the Human temperament, op. cit.;Google Scholar
  93. 6b.
    E. Schrödinger, “Indeterminism in physics” (1931), in: Science and the Human temperament, op. cit.;Google Scholar
  94. 6c.
    E. Schrödinger, “Might perhaps energy be a merely statistical concept?”, Nuovo cimento, 9, 162–170, 1958Google Scholar
  95. 7.
    E. Schrödinger, “The law of chance” in: Science and the Human temperament, op. cit. p. 36Google Scholar
  96. 8.
    E. Schrödinger, “The statistical law of nature”, Nature, 153, 704, 1944Google Scholar
  97. 9.
    E. Schrödinger, “Die Besonderheit des Weltbilds der Naturwissenschaft”, Acta Physica Austriaca, 1, 201–245, 1948Google Scholar
  98. 1.
    E. Schrödinger, “The exchange of energy according to wave mechanics” (1927), in Collected papers on wave mechanics, op. cit. p. 146Google Scholar
  99. 2a.
    M. Born, “On the quantum mechanics of collisions” in: J. A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek, Quantum theory and measurements, op. cit.;Google Scholar
  100. 2b.
    M. Born, “Das Adiabatenprinzip in der Quantenmechanik”, Z. Phys. 40, 167–192, 1926.Google Scholar
  101. 2c.
    Mara Beller “Born’s probabilistic interpretation: a case study of ‘concepts in flux’”, Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci., 21, 563–588, 1990) however pointed that, in 1926, Born did not insist so much on particles as on quantum jumps. His strong corpuscularian commitment was developed much later (see his paper “Physical reality” op. cit., 1953).Google Scholar
  102. 3.
    In his original paper on collisions, Born refers to the probability for an electron “to be thrown out” in a certain direction. Later on (in his Atomic physics, Blackie & son, 1944), he maintains a certain ambiguity about the epistemological status of quantum probabilities. Are they probabilities of a particle to be or to be found in a given element of volume? At page 139 of his book, we read that “∣ψE2dv is the probability that the electron (regarded as a corpuscle) is in the volume element dv”; and at page 140, that “∣ψn2dv is the probability that the electron will be found in the volume element dv”. See discussion in §2–4Google Scholar
  103. 4.
    M. Jammer, The philosophy of quantum mechanics, op. cit. p. 43Google Scholar
  104. 1.
    E. Schrödinger, Letter to Planck, July 4, 1927, in: K. Przibram, Letters on wave mechanics, op. cit. p.20Google Scholar
  105. 2.
    H. Reichenbach, Philosophic foundations of quantum mechanics, California University Press, 1946Google Scholar
  106. 3.
    See for instance the appendix to the 1952 edition of E. Schrödinger’s “Statistical thermodynamics”, op. cit.Google Scholar
  107. 1.
    E. Schrödinger, “Indeterminism in physics”, in: Science and the human temperament, op. cit. p. 45.Google Scholar
  108. 2.
    ibid. p. 43Google Scholar
  109. 1.
    E. Schrödinger, “Quantization as a problem of proper values II”, in: Collected papers on quantum mechanics, op. cit. p. 27Google Scholar
  110. 2.
    E. Schrödinger, “On the relation between the quantum mechanics of Heisenberg, Born and Jordan, and that of Schrödinger”, in: Collected papers on quantum mechanics, op. cit., p. 59Google Scholar
  111. 3.
    See the letter of July 28, 1926, where W. Heisenberg reported to W. Pauli the outcome of Schrödinger’s conference in Munich. In: N. Bohr, Collected works, E. Rüdinger (gen. ed.), vol. 6, J. Kalckar (ed.), North-Holland, 1985, p. 10.Google Scholar
  112. 1.
    M. Jammer, The conceptual development of quantum mechanics, Mc Graw Hill, 1966, p. 184Google Scholar
  113. 2.
    E. Schrödinger, “Quantization and proper values-I”, in: Collected papers on quantum mechanics, op. cit., p. 11Google Scholar
  114. 3.
    E. Schrödinger, “The fundamental ideal of wave mechanics” (Nobel lecture, 1933), in: Science and the Human temperament, op. cit. p. 152Google Scholar
  115. 4.
    E. Schrödinger, “Quantization and proper values-II”, in: Collected papers on quantum mechanics, op. cit. p. 26Google Scholar
  116. 5a.
    E. Schrödinger, “The exchange of energy according to wave mechanics”, in: Collected papers on quantum mechanics, op. cit. p. 140;Google Scholar
  117. 5b.
    the fact that this additivity of frequencies does not fit with classical vibration theories was stressed much later in: E. Schrödinger, “Are there quantum jumps?”, loc. cit. Collected papers on quantum mechanics, op. cit. p. 116, and also in: E. Schrödinger, Dublin seminar, July 1952 colloquium (in: E. Schrödinger, The interpretation of quantum mechanics (Dublin seminars 1949–1955 and other unpublished texts), op. cit. p. 25)Google Scholar
  118. 1.
    E. Schrödinger, “Zur Einsteinschen Gastheorie”, Phys. Z., 27, 95–101, 1926Google Scholar
  119. 2.
    E. Schrödinger, “The exchange of energy according to wave mechanics”, in: Collected papers on quantum mechanics, op. cit., p. 141Google Scholar
  120. 3.
    E. Schrödinger, “Discussion of probability relations between separated systems”, Proc. Camb. Roy. Soc., 31, 555–563, 1935Google Scholar
  121. 4.
    The expression is borrowed from A. Fine (The shaky game, University of Chicago Press, 1986)Google Scholar
  122. 5.
    E. Schrödinger, Science and humanism, op. cit. p. 11Google Scholar
  123. 6a.
    E. Schrödinger, letter to N. Bohr, May 5, 1928, (Tr. L. Wessels, Schrödinger’s interpretations of wave mechanics, op. cit. p. 340), in: N. Bohr, Collected works, vol. 6, op. cit., p. 463; Einstein warmly approved Schrödinger’s call to relinquish the classical concepts of position and momentum in a letter of May 31, 1928;Google Scholar
  124. 6b.
    N. Bohr, Collected works, vol. 6, op. cit., p. 51.Google Scholar
  125. 1.
    E. Schrödinger, Four lectures on wave mechanics, Blackie & son, 1928, p. 52Google Scholar
  126. 2.
    E. Schrödinger, “Über die Unanwendbarkeit der geometrie im Kleinen”, Naturwissenschaften, 22, 518–520, 1934: “Current quantum mechanics erroneously keeps the concepts of the classical mechanics of mass points, e.g. energy, momentum, position (…) but the price it has to pay for this is that a system in an exctly defined state cannot be ascribed definite values of those quantities. This shows that the concepts are insufficient. The concepts have to be given up, not their exact definitions.”Google Scholar
  127. 3.
    E. Schrödinger, “The present situation in quantum mechanics”, in: J.A. Wheeler & W.H. Zurek (eds.), Quantum theory and measurement, op. cit. §2Google Scholar
  128. 4.
    ibid. § 3Google Scholar
  129. 5.
    Y. Ben-Menahem, “Struggling with causality: Schrödinger’s case”, loc. cit.Google Scholar
  130. 6.
    L. Wessels, Schrödinger’s interpretations of wave mechanics, op. cit. p. 113Google Scholar
  131. 1.
    E. Schrödinger, Letter to N. Bohr, October 23, 1926, N. Bohr, Collected works, vol. 6, op. cit., p. 459Google Scholar
  132. 2.
    see for instance E. Schrödinger, Science and humanism, op. cit. p. 66. For more details, see § 6–1Google Scholar
  133. 3a.
    E. Schrödinger, Science and humanism, op. cit. p. 47;Google Scholar
  134. 3b.
    E. Schrödinger, “Der Geist der Naturwissenschaft”, Eranos Jahrbuch, 14,491–520, 1946Google Scholar
  135. 4.
    E. Schrödinger, Science and humanism, op. cit. p. 53Google Scholar
  136. 5.
    H. Atmanspacher “Is the ontic/epistemic distinction sufficient to describe quantum systems exhaustively?”, in: K.V. Laurikainen, C. Montonen, & K. Sunnaborg, Symposium on the foundations of modern physics 94, Editions Frontières 1994Google Scholar
  137. 1a.
    E. Cassirer, Determinismus und Inderterminismus in der modernen Physik, Götheborgs Högskolas Arsskrift 42,1937;Google Scholar
  138. 1b.
    Determinism and indeterminism in modern physics, Yale University Press, 1956Google Scholar
  139. 2.
    E. Schrödinger, Science and humanism, op. cit. p. 62Google Scholar
  140. 3.
    ibid. p. 49Google Scholar
  141. 1.
    L.B. Alberti, De Pictura (1435), Latin text and French translation by J.L. Schefer, Macula Dédale, 1992, p. 115Google Scholar
  142. 1.
    See for instance W. Heisenberg, Physics and Beyond, encounters and conversations, George Allen & Unwin, 1971 (chapters 4, 5)Google Scholar
  143. 1.
    in: E. Schrödinger, My view of the world, op. cit.Google Scholar
  144. 2.
    After his discussions with Bohr in Copenhagen in September 1926; Letter of E. Schrödinger to N. Bohr, October 23, In: N. Bohr, Collected works, E. Rüdinger (gen. ed.), vol. 6, J. Kalckar (ed.), North-Holland, 1985Google Scholar
  145. 1.
    E. Schrödinger, “Neue Wege in der Physik”, elektrotechnische Zeitschrift, 50, 15–16,1929Google Scholar
  146. 2.
    E. Schrödinger, Transformation and interpretation in quantum mechanics, (in: E. Schrödinger, The interpretation of quantum mechanics (Dublin seminars 1949–1955 and other unpublished texts), op. cit. p. 50)Google Scholar
  147. 3.
    E. Schrödinger, Science and Humanism, op. cit. p. 40Google Scholar
  148. 4.
    E. Schrödinger, letter of august 19th 1935 to A. Einstein, quoted and translated by A. Fine, The shaky game, op. cit. p. 40Google Scholar
  149. 5.
    E. Schrödinger, “The present sitation in quantum mechanics”, in: J.A. Wheeler & W.H. Zurek (eds.), Quantum theory and measurement, op. cit., §5Google Scholar
  150. 1a.
    V. Lentzen, “The interaction between subject and object in observation”, Erkenntnis, 6, 326–333, 1936;Google Scholar
  151. 1b.
    H. Margenau, “Critical points in modern physical theory”, Philos, sci., 4, 337–370, 1937Google Scholar
  152. 2.
    E. Schrödinger, Transformation and interpretation in quantum mechanics, (in: E. Schrödinger, The interpretation of quantum mechanics (Dublin seminars 1949–1955 and other unpublished texts), op. cit., p. 78)Google Scholar
  153. 1.
    Y. Ben-Menahem, “Struggling with causality: Schrödinger’s case”, loc. cit., p. 78Google Scholar
  154. 1a.
    M. Redhead & P. Teller, “Particle labels and the theory of indistinguishable particles in quantum mechanics”, Brit. J. Phil. Sci., 43, 201–218, 1992;Google Scholar
  155. 1b.
    M.L. Dalla Chiara and G. Toraldo di Francia, “Individual, Kinds and Names in Physics”, in: Corsi et al. (eds.) Bridging the Gap: Philosophy, mathematics and physics, Kluwer, 1993Google Scholar
  156. 2a.
    D. Deutsch, “Quantum theory as a universal physical theory”, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 24, 1–41, 1985;Google Scholar
  157. 2b.
    J.D. Barrow and F. Tipler, The anthropic cosmological principle, Oxford University Press, 1986, p. 458 f.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michel Bitbol
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueParisFrance

Personalised recommendations