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.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Cartwright, N.: 1974, 'A Dilemma for the Traditional Interpretation of Quantum Mixtures', in K. Schaffner and R. Cohen (eds.), Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association Meeting, Dordrecht, Reidel, pp. 251–258.
Fine, A.: 1987, 'With Complacency or Concern: Solving the Quantum Measurement Problem', in Kelvin's Baltimore Lectures and Modern Theoretical Physics: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 491–505.
Fine, A.: 1992, 'Resolving the Measurement Problem: Reply to Stairs', Foundations of Physics Letters 5, 125–138.
Grossman, N.: 1972, 'Quantum Mechanics and Interpretations of Probability Theory', Philosophy of Science 39, 451–460.
Healey, R.:(1989), The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: An Interactive Interpretation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Martin, C.: 1994, 'Dispositions and Conditionals', Philosophical Quarterly 44, 1–8.
Mellor, H.: 1974, The Matter of Chance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mellor, H.: 2000, 'The Semantics and Ontology of Dispositions', Mind 109, 757–780.
Milne, P.: 1985, 'A Note on Popper, Propensities and the Two Slit Experiment', British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 36, 66–70.
Mumford, S.: 1998, Dispositions, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Popper, K.: 1957, 'The Propensity Interpretation of the Calculus of Probability, and the Quantum Theory', in S. Körner (ed.), Observation and Interpretation in the Philosophy of Physics, pp. 65–70.
Popper, K.: 1959, 'The Propensity Interpretation of Probability', British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10, 25–43.
Popper, K.:(1963), Conjectures and Refutations, Routledge, London.
Popper, K.: 1967, 'Quantum Mechanics without the Observer', in M. Bunge (ed.), Quantum Theory and Reality, Springer Verlag, New York, pp. 7–44.
Popper, K.: 1982, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Vol. III of the Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London.
Stein, H.: 1997, 'Maximal Extension of an Impossibility Theorem Concerning Quantum Measurement', in R. Cohen and J. Stachel (eds.), Potentiality, Entanglement and Passion at a Distance, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Suárez, M.: 2004, 'Quantum Selections, Propensities, and the Problem of Measurement'', British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55(2), 219–255.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Suárez, M. On Quantum Propensities: Two Arguments Revisited. Erkenntnis 61, 1–16 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ERKE.0000037514.89664.ee
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ERKE.0000037514.89664.ee