Graduate studies at Western
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (2):219 - 255 (2004)
|Abstract||This paper expands on, and provides a qualified defence of, Arthur Fine's selective interactions solution to the measurement problem. Fine's approach must be understood against the background of the insolubility proof of the quantum measurement. I first defend the proof as an appropriate formal representation of the quantum measurement problem. The nature of selective interactions, and more generally selections, is then clarified, and three arguments in their favour are offered. First, selections provide the only known solution to the measurement problem that does not relinquish any of the explicit premises of the insolubility proofs. Second, unlike some no-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics, selections suffer no difficulties with non-ideal measurements. Third, unlike most collapse interpretations, selections can be independently motivated by an appeal to quantum propensities. Introduction The problem of quantum measurement 2.1 The ignorance interpretation of mixtures 2.2 The eigenstate–eigenvalue link 2.3 The quantum theory of measurement The insolubility proof of the quantum measurement 3.1 Some notation 3.2 The transfer of probability condition (TPC) 3.3 The occurrence of outcomes condition (OOC) A defence of the insolubility proof 4.1 Stein's critique 4.2 Ignorance is not required 4.3 The problem of quantum measurement is an idealisation Selections 5.1 Representing dispositional properties 5.2 Selections solve the measurement problem 5.3 Selections and ignorance Non-ideal selections 6.1 No-collapse interpretations and non-ideal measurements 6.2 Exact and approximate measurements 6.3 Selections for non-ideal interactions 6.4 Approximate selections 6.5 Implications for ignorance Selective interactions test quantum propensities 7.1 Equivalence classes as physical ‘aspects’: a critique 7.2 Quantum dispositions 7.3 Selections as a propensity modal interpretation 7.4 A comparison with Popper's propensity interpretation.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Richard Healey (1989). The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: An Interactive Interpretation. Cambridge University Press.
Nicholas Maxwell (1972). A New Look at the Quantum Mechanical Problem of Measurement. American Journal of Physics 40:1431-5..
Nicholas Maxwell (1975). Does the Minimal Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Resolve the Measurement Problem? Methodology and Science 8:84-101.
Nicholas Maxwell (1973). The Problem of Measurement - Real or Imaginary? American Journal of Physics 41:1022-5.
Hasok Chang (1997). On the Applicability of the Quantum Measurement Formalism. Erkenntnis 46 (2):143-163.
Richard Healey (1995). Dissipating the Quantum Measurement Problem. Topoi 14 (1):55-65.
Rodolfo Gambini, Luis Pedro Garcia Pintos & Jorge Pullin (2010). Undecidability and the Problem of Outcomes in Quantum Measurements. Foundations of Physics 40:93-115.
Nicholas Maxwell (1976). Towards a Micro Realistic Version of Quantum Mechanics, Part I. Foundations of Physics 6 (3):275-292.
Jeffrey Bub (1988). From Micro to Macro: A Solution to the Measurement Problem of Quantum Mechanics. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:134 - 144.
M. Suarez (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 ( #81,814 of 739,352 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,538 of 739,352 )
How can I increase my downloads?