Quantum Theory: A Pragmatist Approach

While its applications have made quantum theory arguably the most successful theory in physics, its interpretation continues to be the subject of lively debate within the community of physicists and philosophers concerned with conceptual foundations. This situation poses a problem for a pragmatist for whom meaning derives from use. While disputes about how to use quantum theory have arisen from time to time, they have typically been quickly resolved, and consensus reached, within the relevant scientific sub-community. Yet, rival accounts of the meaning of quantum theory continue to proliferate.1 In this article, I offer a diagnosis of this situation and outline a pragmatist solution to the problem it poses, leaving further details for subsequent articles. 1 Introduction 2 The Objectivity of Quantum Probabilities   2.1 Quantum probabilities are objective   2.2 Quantum probabilities do not represent physical reality 3 How Quantum Theory Limits Description of Physical Reality 4 The Relational Nature of Quantum States   4.1 Rovelli's relationism   4.2 Quantum Bayesian relationism   4.3 Reference-frame relationism   4.4 Agent-situation relationism and wave-collapse   4.5 Why quantum probabilities are not Lewisian chances 5 The Objectivity of Physical Description in Quantum Theory   5.1 Why violations of Bell inequalities involve no physical non-locality   5.2 Objectivity, inter-subjectivity, and Wigner's friend 6 Conclusion 1 Introduction 2 The Objectivity of Quantum Probabilities   2.1 Quantum probabilities are objective   2.2 Quantum probabilities do not represent physical reality   2.1 Quantum probabilities are objective   2.2 Quantum probabilities do not represent physical reality 3 How Quantum Theory Limits Description of Physical Reality 4 The Relational Nature of Quantum States   4.1 Rovelli's relationism   4.2 Quantum Bayesian relationism   4.3 Reference-frame relationism   4.4 Agent-situation relationism and wave-collapse   4.5 Why quantum probabilities are not Lewisian chances   4.1 Rovelli's relationism   4.2 Quantum Bayesian relationism   4.3 Reference-frame relationism   4.4 Agent-situation relationism and wave-collapse   4.5 Why quantum probabilities are not Lewisian chances 5 The Objectivity of Physical Description in Quantum Theory   5.1 Why violations of Bell inequalities involve no physical non-locality   5.2 Objectivity, inter-subjectivity, and Wigner's friend   5.1 Why violations of Bell inequalities involve no physical non-locality   5.2 Objectivity, inter-subjectivity, and Wigner's friend 6 Conclusion

[1]  C. Fuchs.  QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism , 2010, 1003.5209.

[2]  A. Major,et al.  Wave and particle in molecular interference lithography. , 2009, Physical review letters.

[3]  W. Zurek.  Quantum Darwinism , 2009, 0903.5082.

[4]  Nicolas Gisin,et al.  Non-realism: Deep Thought or a Soft Option? , 2009, 0901.4255.

[5]  Maximilian Schlosshauer,et al.  Decoherence and the Quantum-To-Classical Transition , 2008 .

[6]  P. Meuffels.  Decoherence and the quantum measurement problem , 2007 .

[7]  T. Rudolph,et al.  Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum information , 2006, quant-ph/0610030.

[8]  N. David Mermin,et al.  In Praise of Measurement , 2006, Quantum Inf. Process..

[9]  Ren-Bao Liu,et al.  Restoring coherence lost to a slow interacting mesoscopic spin bath. , 2006, Physical review letters.

[10]  K. Sweeney.  Personal knowledge , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  T. Rudolph,et al.  Dialogue Concerning Two Views on Quantum Coherence: Factist and Fictionist , 2005, quant-ph/0507214.

[12]  A. Zeilinger,et al.  Decoherence of matter waves by thermal emission of radiation , 2004, Nature.

[13]  B. Allen.  Articulating Reasons: An Introduction to Inferentialism , 2002 .

[14]  S. Michael.  Vienna Indeterminism II: From Exner's Synthesis to Frank and von Mises , 2002 .

[15]  On “The Reality of the Past” , 2001, Meaning, Knowledge, and Reality.

[16]  S. Adler.  Why decoherence has not solved the measurement problem: A Response to P. W. Anderson , 2001, quant-ph/0112095.

[17]  S. P. Walborn,et al.  Double-slit quantum eraser , 2001, quant-ph/0106078.

[18]  W. Zurek.  Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical , 2001, quant-ph/0105127.

[19]  Jack Kaminsky.  Making it Explicit , 1999 .

[20]  A. Peres.  Delayed choice for entanglement swapping , 1999, quant-ph/9904042.

[21]  C. Rovelli.  Relational quantum mechanics , 1996, quant-ph/9609002.

[22]  Douglas A. Powell,et al.  Constructing reality , 1993, SIGDOC '93.

[23]  C. Wright.  Truth and Objectivity , 1992 .

[24]  Paul Teller,et al.  Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View , 1991 .

[25]  Richard Healey,et al.  The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: An Interactive Interpretation , 1991 .

[26]  Mermin Nd.  Simple unified form for the major no-hidden-variables theorems. , 1990 .

[27]  B. D'espagnat.  Towards a separable “empirical reality”? , 1990 .

[28]  A. Zeilinger,et al.  Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics , 1989 .

[29]  Tsuyoshi Matsuda,et al.  Demonstration of single‐electron buildup of an interference pattern , 1989 .

[30]  J. Bell,et al.  Speakable and Unspeakable in Quatum Mechanics , 1988 .

[31]  D. Lewis.  Philosophical Papers: Volume II , 1987 .

[32]  Richard C. Jeffrey,et al.  Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability. Volume I , 1974 .

[33]  J. Bell.  On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics , 1966 .

[34]  Wilfrid S. Sellars,et al.  III.—INFERENCE AND MEANING , 1953 .

[35]  A. Einstein.  QUANTEN‐MECHANIK UND WIRKLICHKEIT , 1948 .

[36]  Albert Einstein,et al.  Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? , 1935 .

[37]  G. Temple.  The physical principles of the quantum theory , 1932 .

[38]  Guido Bacciagaluppi,et al.  The Role of Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics , 2012 .

[39]  Maximilian Schlosshauer-Selbach.  Decoherence and the quantum-to-classical transition , 2008 .

[40]  R. Mises.  Über die gegenwärtige Krise der Mechanik , 2005, Naturwissenschaften.

[41]  I. Stamatescu,et al.  BOOK REVIEW: Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory , 2004 .

[42]  E. Brändas.  Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory : E. Joos, H. D. Zeh, C. Kiefer, D. Giulini, J. Kupsch and I.-O Stamatescu, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2003 , 2004 .

[43]  Carlo Rovelli,et al.  Relational Quantum Mechanics , 2002 .

[44]  I. Stamatescu,et al.  Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory , 1996 .

[45]  I. Levi,et al.  Making It Explicit , 1994 .

[46]  R. Peierls.  In defence of “measurement” , 1991 .

[47]  Mermin,et al.  Simple unified form for the major no-hidden-variables theorems. , 1990, Physical review letters.

[48]  D. Lewis.  A Subjectivist’s Guide to Objective Chance , 1980 .

[49]  Karl R. Popper,et al.  Quantum Mechanics without “The Observer” , 1967 .

[50]  A. Gleason.  Measures on the Closed Subspaces of a Hilbert Space , 1957 .

[51]  A. Kolmogoroff.  Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung , 1933 .

[52]  W. Heisenberg.  The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory , 1930 .