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.
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.
Dieks, D. (1993). The modal interpretation of quantum mechanics, measurements and macroscopic behaviour,Physical Review A,49, 2290.
Healey, R. (1989).The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: An Interactive Interpretation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
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.
Van Fraassen, B. C. (1991).Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights 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
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00676242