A Semantic Approach to the Completeness Problem in Quantum Mechanics

The old Bohr–Einstein debate about the completeness of quantum mechanics (QM) was held on an ontological ground. The completeness problem becomes more tractable, however, if it is preliminarily discussed from a semantic viewpoint. Indeed every physical theory adopts, explicitly or not, a truth theory for its observative language, in terms of which the notions of semantic objectivity and semantic completeness of the physical theory can be introduced and inquired. In particular, standard QM adopts a verificationist theory of truth that implies its semantic nonobjectivity; moreover, we show in this paper that standard QM is semantically complete, which matches Bohr's thesis. On the other hand, one of the authors has provided a Semantic Realism (or SR) interpretation of QM that adopts a Tarskian theory of truth as correspondence for the observative language of QM (which was previously mantained to be impossible); according to this interpretation QM is semantically objective, yet incomplete, which matches EPR's thesis. Thus, standard QM and the SR interpretation of QM come to opposite conclusions. These can be reconciled within an integrationist perspective that interpretes non-Tarskian theories of truth as theories of metalinguistic concepts different from truth.

[1]  C. Garola.  Objectivity versus Nonobjectivity in Quantum Mechanics , 2000 .

[2]  C. Garola.  Against “Paradoxes”: A New Quantum Philosophy for Quantum Mechanics , 1999 .

[3]  M. Jammer.  The philosophy of quantum mechanics , 1974 .

[4]  N. Bohr,et al.  Quantum Mechanics and Physical Reality , 1935, Nature.

[5]  K. Kirkpatrick.  Translation of Lueders'"Uber die Zustandsanderung durch den Messprozess" , 2004, quant-ph/0403007.

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

[7]  C. Garola.  Truth versus testability in Quantum Logic , 1992 .

[8]  Insolubility of the Quantum Measurement Problem for Unsharp Observables , 1996, quant-ph/9604013.

[9]  Embedding Quantum Mechanics into an Objective Framework , 2003, quant-ph/0303017.

[10]  Günther Ludwig.  Foundations of quantum mechanics , 1983 .

[11]  Claudio Garola,et al.  Semantic realism versus EPR-Like paradoxes: The Furry, Bohm-Aharonov, and Bell paradoxes , 1996 .

[12]  C. Garola.  Classical foundations of quantum logic , 1991 .

[13]  E. Specker,et al.  The Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics , 1967 .

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

[15]  “Quantal” Behavior in Classical Probability , 2001, quant-ph/0106072.

[16]  Claudio Garola,et al.  The theoretical apparatus of semantic realism: A new language for classical and quantum physics , 1996 .

[17]  M. Strevens.  Scientific Explanation , 2005 .

[18]  P. Busch,et al.  The quantum theory of measurement , 1991 .

[19]  C. Piron,et al.  On the Foundations of Quantum Physics , 1976 .

[20]  E. Beltrametti,et al.  Bericht: On the Logic of Quantum Mechanics , 1973 .

[21]  M. Resnik,et al.  Aspects of Scientific Explanation. , 1966 .

[22]  M. Sentís.  Quantum theory of open systems , 2002 .

[23]  Claudio Garola,et al.  A Simple Model for an Objective Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics , 2002 .

[24]  E. Andrade,et al.  Physics: The Elements , 1921, Nature.

[25]  Compatibility and probability , 2004, quant-ph/0403021.

[26]  A. R. Turquette,et al.  Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics , 1957 .