Reexamining the Quantum-Classical Relation: Beyond Reductionism and Pluralism
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Cambridge University Press (2008)
Classical mechanics and quantum mechanics are two of the most successful scientific theories ever discovered, and yet how they can describe the same world is far from clear: one theory is deterministic, the other indeterministic; one theory describes a world in which chaos is pervasive, the other a world in which chaos is absent. Focusing on the exciting field of 'quantum chaos', this book reveals that there is a subtle and complex relation between classical and quantum mechanics. It challenges the received view that classical and quantum mechanics are incommensurable, and revives another, largely forgotten tradition due to Niels Bohr and Paul Dirac. By artfully weaving together considerations from the history of science, philosophy of science, and contemporary physics, this book offers a new way of thinking about intertheory relations and scientific explanation. It will be of particular interest to historians and philosophers of science, philosophically-inclined physicists, and interested non-specialists.
|Keywords||Quantum theory Physics Philosophy Quantum theory History Quantum theory Philosophy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Buy the book||$15.00 used (90% off) $21.66 new (85% off) $140.00 direct from Amazon Amazon page|
|Call number||QC174.12.B65 2008|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Alisa Bokulich (2011). How Scientific Models Can Explain. Synthese 180 (1):33 - 45.
Joshua Rosaler (2015). “Formal” Versus “Empirical” Approaches to Quantum–Classical Reduction. Topoi 34 (2):325-338.
Mark Pexton (2014). How Dimensional Analysis Can Explain. Synthese 191 (10):2333-2351.
Matteo Colombo (2014). Neural Representationalism, the Hard Problem of Content and Vitiated Verdicts. A Reply to Hutto & Myin. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 13 (2):257-274.
Samuel Schindler (2014). Explanatory Fictions—for Real? Synthese 191 (8):1741-1755.
Similar books and articles
John T. Bruer (1982). The Classical Limit of Quantum Theory. Synthese 50 (2):167 - 212.
Peter Gibbins (1987). Particles and Paradoxes: The Limits of Quantum Logic. Cambridge University Press.
James T. Cushing (2000). Bohmian Insights Into Quantum Chaos. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):445.
John Ellis (2000). Quantum Reflections. Cambridge University Press.
Angelo Bassi (ed.) (2006). Quantum Mechanics: Are There Quantum Jumps? Trieste, Italy, 5 Spetember -2005 and on the Present Status of Quantum Mechanics Lošinj, Croatia 7-9 September 2005. [REVIEW] American Institute of Physics.
Michael Redhead (1987). Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism: A Prolegomenon to the Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford University Press.
Pieter E. Vermaas (1999). A Philosopher's Understanding of Quantum Mechanics: Possibilities and Impossibilities of a Modal Interpretation. Cambridge University Press.
Alisa Bokulich (2004). Open or Closed? Dirac, Heisenberg, and the Relation Between Classical and Quantum Mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 35 (3):377-396.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #678,238 of 1,793,278 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #463,804 of 1,793,278 )
How can I increase my downloads?