Skip to main content
Log in

Why modal interpretations of quantum mechanics must abandon classical reasoning about physical properties

  • Published:
International Journal of Theoretical Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Modal interpretations of quantum mechanics propose to solve the measurement problem by rejecting the orthodox view that in entangled states of a system which are nontrivial superpositions of an observable's eigenstates, it is meaningless to speak of that observable as having a value or corresponding to a property of the system. Though denying this is reminiscent of how hidden-variable interpreters have challenged orthodox views about superposition, modal interpreters also argue that their proposals avoid any of the objectionable features of physical properties that beset hidden-variable interpretations, like contextualism and nonlocality. Even so, I shall prove that modal interpreters of quantum mechanics are still committed to giving up at least one of the following three conditions characteristic of classical reasoning about physical properties: (1) Properties certain to be found on measuring a system should be counted as intrinsic properties of the system. (2) If two propositions stating the possession of two intrinsic properties by the system are regarded as meaningful, then their conjunction should also correspond to a meaningful proposition about the system possessing a certain intrinsic property; and similarly for disjunction and negation. (3) The intrinsic properties of a composite system should at least include (though need not be exhausted by) the intrinsic properties of its parts. Conditions 1–3 are by no means undeniable. But the onus seems to be on modal interpreters to tell us why rejecting one of these is preferable to an ontology of properties incorporating contextualism and nonlocality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bub, J. (1994). On the structure of quantal proposition systems,Foundations of Physics, in press.

  • Clifton, R. (1995). Independently motivating the Kochen-Dieks modal interpretation of quantum mechanics,British Journal for Philosophy of Sciences,46, 33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dieks, D. (1993). The modal interpretation of quantum mechanics, measurements and macroscopic behaviour,Physical Review A,49, 2290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, R. (1989).The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: An Interactive Interpretation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochen, S. (1985). A new interpretation of quantum mechanics, inSymposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics, P. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt, eds., World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 151–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Fraassen, B. C. (1991).Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clifton, R. Why modal interpretations of quantum mechanics must abandon classical reasoning about physical properties. Int J Theor Phys 34, 1303–1312 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00676242

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00676242

Keywords

Navigation