On quantum propensities: Two arguments revisited [Book Review]
Graduate studies at Western
Erkenntnis 61 (1):1-16 (2004)
|Abstract||Peter Milne and Neal Grossman have argued against Popper's propensity interpretation of quantum mechanics, by appeal to the two-slit experiment and to the distinction between mixtures and superpositions, respectively. In this paper I show that a different propensity interpretation successfully meets their objections. According to this interpretation, the possession of a quantum propensity by a quantum system is independent of the experimental set-ups designed to test it, even though its manifestations are not.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Mauricio Suárez (2007). Quantum Propensities. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 38 (2):418-438.
Neal Grossman (1972). Quantum Mechanics and Interpretations of Probability Theory. Philosophy of Science 39 (4):451-460.
Nicholas Maxwell (1976). Towards a Micro Realistic Version of Quantum Mechanics, Part II. Foundations of Physics 6 (6):661-676.
Nicholas Maxwell (1976). Towards a Micro Realistic Version of Quantum Mechanics, Part I. Foundations of Physics 6 (3):275-292.
Nicholas Maxwell (1982). Instead of Particles and Fields: A Micro Realistic Quantum "Smearon" Theory. [REVIEW] Foundatioins of Physics 12 (6):607-631.
James H. Fetzer (1983). Probability and Objectivity in Deterministic and Indeterministic Situations. Synthese 57 (3):367--86.
Christopher S. I. Mccurdy (1996). Humphrey's Paradox and the Interpretation of Inverse Conditional Propensities. Synthese 108 (1):105 - 125.
Mauricio Suárez (2004). Quantum Selections, Propensities and the Problem of Measurement. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (2):219 - 255.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #81,761 of 722,951 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 722,951 )
How can I increase my downloads?