Retrocausal Effects as a Consequence of Orthodox Quantum Mechanics Refined to Accommodate The Principle of Sufficient Reason
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
AIP Conference Proceedings 1408 (2011)
The principle of sufficient reason asserts that anything that happens does so for a reason: no definite state of affairs can come into being unless there is a sufficient reason why that particular thing should happen. This principle is usually attributed to Leibniz, although the first recorded Western philosopher to use it was Anaximander of Miletus. The demand that nature be rational, in the sense that it be compatible with the principle of sufficient reason, conflicts with a basic feature of contemporary orthodox physical theory, namely the notion that nature’s response to the probing action of an observer is determined by pure chance, and hence on the basis of absolutely no reason at all. This appeal to pure chance can be deemed to have no rational fundamental place in reason-based Western science. It is argued here, on the basis of other basic principles of quantum physics, that in a world that conforms to the principle of sufficient reason, the usual quantum statistical rules will naturally emerge at the pragmatic level, in cases where the reason behind nature’s choice of response is unknown, but that the usual statistics can become biased when the reason for the choice is empirically identifiable. It is explained here that if the statistical laws of quantum mechanics were to be biased in this way then the basically forward-in-time unfolding of empirical reality described by orthodox quantum mechanics would generate the appearances of backward-time-effects of the kind that have been reported in the scientific literature.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Yitzhak Melamed & Martin Lin, Principle of Sufficient Reason. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1974). On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. La Salle, Ill.,Open Court.
Mark T. Nelson (1996). The Principle of Sufficient Reason: A Moral Argument. Religious Studies 32 (1):15-26.
Simon Saunders (2003). Physics and Leibniz's Principles. In Katherine Brading & Elena Castellani (eds.), Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections. Cambridge University Press 289--307.
Rob Clifton (1996). The Properties of Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47 (3):371-398.
Henry P. Stapp (2006). Quantum Interactive Dualism: An Alternative to Materialism. Zygon 41 (3):599-615.
Daniel Bonevac (2001). Defeasibly Sufficient Reason. The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 2001:1-10.
Peter J. Lewis (2013). Retrocausal Quantum Mechanics: Maudlin's Challenge Revisited. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 44 (4):442-449.
Alexander Pruss, Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit: Arguments New and Old for the Principle of Sufficient Reason Alexander R. Pruss November 1, 2002 1. Introduction. [REVIEW]
John Edwin Gurr (1959). The Principle of Sufficient Reason in Some Scholastic Systems, 1750-1900. Marquette University Press.
James T. Cushing (2000). Bohmian Insights Into Quantum Chaos. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):445.
Added to index2011-03-27
Total downloads103 ( #37,113 of 1,793,162 )
Recent downloads (6 months)15 ( #50,360 of 1,793,162 )
How can I increase my downloads?