Abstract
General metaphysical arguments have been proposed in favour of the thesis that all dispositions have categorical bases (Armstrong; Prior, Pargetter, Jackson). These arguments have been countered by equally general arguments in support of ungrounded dispositions (Molnar, Mumford). I believe that this controversy cannot be settled purely on the level of abstract metaphysical considerations. Instead, I propose to look for ungrounded dispositions in specific physical theories, such as quantum mechanics. I explain why non-classical properties such as spin are best interpreted as irreducible dispositional properties, and I give reasons why even seemingly classical properties, for instance position or momentum, should receive a similar treatment when interpreted in the quantum realm. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, I argue that quantum dispositions should not be limited to probabilistic dispositions (propensities) by showing reasons why even possession of well-defined values of parameters should qualify as a dispositional property. I finally discuss the issue of the actuality of quantum dispositions, arguing that it may be justified to treat them as potentialities whose being has a lesser degree of reality than that of classical categorical properties, due to the incompatibility relations between non-commuting observables.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Albert D. (1992) Quantum mechanics and experience. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Armstrong D. (1968) A materialistic theory of the mind. Routledge, London
Bigaj T. (2010) How to (properly) strengthen Bell’s theorem using counterfactuals. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 41: 58–66
Bird A. (1998) Dispositions and antidotes. Philosophical Quarterly 48: 227–234
Bird A. (2007) Nature’s metaphysics. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Dorato M. (2007) Dispositions, relational properties and the quantum world. In: Kistler M., Gnassounou B. (eds) Dispositions and causal powers. Ashgate, England, pp 249–270
Dorato M., Esfeld M. (2010) GRW as an ontology of dispositions. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 41: 41–49
Ellis B. (2001) Scientific essentialism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Fara, M. (2009). Dispositions. In E. N. Zalta (Ed), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/dispositions/.
Hughes R. (1989) The structure and interpretation of quantum mechanics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Martin C. B. (1994) Dispositions and conditionals. Philosophical Quarterly 44: 1–8
Mellor D. (1974) In defense of dispositions. Philosophical Review 83: 157–181
Molnar G. (2003) Powers: A study in metaphysics. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Mumford S. (1998) Dispositions. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Mumford S. (2006) The ungrounded argument. Synthese 149(3): 471–489
Mumford S. (2007) Filled in space. In: Kistler M., Gnassounou B. (eds) Dispositions and causal powers. Ashgate, England, pp 67–80
Prior E., Pargetter R., Jackson F. (1982) Three theses about dispositions. American Philosophical Quarterly 19: 251–257
Stapp H. P. (1997) Nonlocal character of quantum theory. American Journal of Physics 65: 300–304
Stapp H. P. (2004) A Bell-type theorem without hidden variables. American Journal of Physics 72: 30–33
Suárez M. (2004) Quantum selections, propensities and the problem of measurement. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55(2): 219–255
Suárez M. (2007) Quantum propensities. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38: 418–438
Thomson-Jones, M. (unpublished manuscript). Dispositions and quantum mechanics.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bigaj, T. Ungrounded Dispositions in Quantum Mechanics. Found Sci 17, 205–221 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-011-9232-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-011-9232-0