Dissolving the measurement problem is not an option for the realist |
| |
Institution: | University of Bern, Institut für Philosophie, Länggassstrasse 49, CH-3012, Bern, Switzerland;Faculty of Marine Technology, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, 1-6-3-202, Sugebanba Tama-ku, Kawasaki-shi, Kanagawa, 214-0004, Japan;Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, UC Irvine, United States;Università degli Studi di Torino, Department of Philosophy and Educational Sciences, Via S. Ottavio 20, Torino, Italy;342 Rader Hall, Department of History, Philosophy, Politics, International Studies, and Legal Studies, Morehead State University, Morehead, KY 40351, USA;Nanyang Technological University, Philosophy Programme, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637 332, Singapore |
| |
Abstract: | This paper critically assesses the proposal that scientific realists do not need to search for a solution of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, but should instead dismiss the problem as ill-posed. James Ladyman and Don Ross have sought to support this proposal with arguments drawn from their naturalized metaphysics and from a Bohr-inspired approach to quantum mechanics. I show that the first class of arguments is unsuccessful, because formulating the measurement problem does not depend on the metaphysical commitments which are undermined by ontic structural realism, rainforest realism, or naturalism in general. The second class of arguments is problematic due to its refusal to provide an analysis of the term “measurement”. It turns out that the proposed dissolution of the measurement problem is in conflict not only with traditional forms of scientific realism but even with the rather minimal realism that Ladyman and Ross themselves defend. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of two related proposals: Healey's pragmatist approach and Bub's information-theoretic interpretation. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|