Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:00:21.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantum Measurement and the Program for the Unity of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

David C. Scharf
David C. Scharf*
Affiliation:
College of the Science of Creative Intelligence, Maharishi International University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is quite extraordinary, philosophically speaking, that according to the orthodox interpretation:

  1. (a) quantum mechanics is a complete and comprehensive theory of microphysics, and yet

  2. (b) the role of measurement, in quantum mechanics, cannot be analyzed in terms of the collective effects of the microphysical particles making up the apparatus.

It follows that, if the orthodox interpretation is correct, the measurement apparatus and its quantum physical effects cannot be accounted for microreductively. This is significant because it is widely believed that the relation between physical wholes and parts is microreductive. Indeed, many philosophers are persuaded of the inevitability of universal microreduction to the basic elements of microphysics. This is the viewpoint embodied in the program for the unity of science, espoused in recent years, most notably by Robert Causey (1977).

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , December 1989 , pp. 601 - 623
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by 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 would like to indicate my indebtedness to Peter Achinstein, David Zaret, Thomas Fulton, Gerard Emch, Nicolas Gisin, Henry Kyburg, Ralph Meerbote, Richard Feldman, Joseph Mendola, Joel Marks, Kenton Machina, Harry Deutsch, Robert Steinman, Shelley Stillwell, the anonymous Philosophy of Science referee and many others for their helpful comments.

References

Causey, R. (1977), Unity of Science. Boston: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen-Tannoudji, C.; Diu, B.; and Laloë, F. (1977), Quantum Mechanics, Vol. 1, New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Feynman, R.; Leighton, R.; and Matthew, S. (1965), The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 3. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (1970), “Insolubility of the Measurement Problem”, Physical Review 2D: 2783–2787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorrain, P., and Corson, D. (1970), Electromagnetic Fields and Waves. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, P., and Putnam, H. (1958), “The Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis”, in H. Feigl, M. Scriven, and G. Maxwell (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3–36.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1979), “A Philosopher Looks at Quantum Mechanics”, in H. Putnam, Mathematics, Matter and Method, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 130–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimony, A. (1963), “Role of the Observer in Quantum Theory”, American Journal of Physics 31: 755–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, P. (1983), “The Projection Postulate as a Fortuitous Approximation”, Philosophy of Science 50: 413–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, P. (1984), “The Projection Postulate: A New Perspective”, Philosophy of Science 51: 369–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigner, E. (1963), “The Problem of Measurement”, American Journal of Physics 31: 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar