Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:17:20.452Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observation and Quantum Objectivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Richard Healey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paradox of Wigner’s friend challenges the objectivity of quantum theory. A pragmatist interpretation can meet this challenge by judicious appeal to decoherence. Quantum theory provides situated agents with resources for predicting and explaining what happens in the physical world—not conscious observations of it. Even in bizarre Wigner’s friend scenarios, differently situated agents agree on the objective content of physical magnitude statements while, normally, quantum Darwinism permits agents equal observational access to their truth. Quantum theory has nothing to say about conscious experiences. But it does prompt us to reexamine the significance of everyday claims about the physical world.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 80 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 434 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I thank Jos Uffink for pressing the objection addressed in section 6. This article has benefited from constructive criticisms of several referees for this journal: its publication was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

References

Adler, Stephen. 2000. “Why Decoherence Has Not Solved the Measurement Problem.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics B 34:135–42.Google Scholar
Bassi, Angelo, and Ghirardi, Gian Carlo. 2000. “A General Argument against the Universal Validity of the Superposition Principle.” Physics Letters A 75:373–81.Google Scholar
Bell, John S. 2004. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Rev. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 1994. Making It Explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert 2000. Articulating Reasons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Harvey. 1986. “The Insolubility Proof of the Quantum Measurement Problem.” Foundations of Physics 16:857–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brun, Todd, Finkelstein, Jerry, and Mermin, N. David. 2002. “How Much State Assignments Can Differ.” Physical Review A 65:032315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bub, Jeffrey. 1997. Interpreting the Quantum World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
D’Espagnat, Bernard. 1990. “Toward a Separable ‘Empirical Reality’?” Foundations of Physics 20:1147–72.Google Scholar
D’Espagnat, Bernard 2005. “Consciousness and the Wigner’s Friend Problem.” Foundations of Physics 35:1943–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dick, Philip K. 1968. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Fine, Arthur. 1970. “Insolubility of the Quantum Measurement Problem.” Physical Review D 2:2783–87.Google Scholar
Fine, Arthur 1982. “Joint Distributions, Quantum Correlations, and Commuting Observables.” Journal of Mathematical Physics 23:1306–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleason, Andrew. 1957. “Measures on the Closed Subspaces of a Hilbert Space.” Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 6:885–93.Google Scholar
Healey, Richard. 2012. “Quantum Theory: A Pragmatist View.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63:729–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kochen, Simon, and Specker, Ernst. 1967. “The Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics.” Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 17:59–87.Google Scholar
Mermin, N. David. 1993. “Hidden Variables and the Two Theorems of John Bell.” Reviews of Modern Physics 65:803–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. 1986. The View from Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ollivier, Harold, Poulin, David, and Zurek, Wojciech. 2004. “Objective Properties from Subjective Quantum States: Environment as a Witness.” Physical Review Letters 93:220401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, Huw. 2003. “Truth as Convenient Friction.” Journal of Philosophy C, no. 4, 167–90.Google Scholar
Wigner, Eugene. 1967. “Remarks on the Mind-Body Problem.” In Symmetries and Reflections, 171–84. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. English text of the 3rd ed., trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar