Advertisement

Foundations of Physics

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 669–695 | Cite as

Underdetermination, Realism, and Theory Appraisal: An Epistemological Reflection on Quantum Mechanics

  • Darrin W. BelousekEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper examines the epistemological significance of the present situation of underdetermination in quantum mechanics. After analyzing this underdetermination at three levels---formal, ontological, and methodological---the paper considers implications for a number of variants of the thesis of scientific realism in fundamental physics and reassesses Lakatos‘ characterization of progress in physical theory in light of the present situation. Next, this paper considers the implications of underdetermination for Weinberg’s ‘‘dream of a final theory.’’ Finally, the paper concludes by suggesting how one might still think of realism and progress in fundamental physics despite the possibility of persistent underdetermination in quantum mechanics.

Keywords

quantum mechanics theory ontology underdetermination realism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Laudan, L., Leplin, J. 1991‘‘Empirical equivalence and underdetermination’‘J. Philos.88449472Google Scholar
  2. Quine, W. V. O. 1975‘‘On empirically equivalent systems of the world’‘Erkenntnis9313328Google Scholar
  3. Cushing, J. T. 1994Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen HegemonyUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. Belousek, D. W. 1999‘‘Bell’s theorem, nonseparability, and spacetime individuation in quantum mechanics’‘Philos. Sci.66S28S46ProceedingsGoogle Scholar
  5. Belousek, D. W. 2000a‘‘Statistics, symmetry, and the convetionality of indistinguishability in quantum mechanics’‘Found. Phys.30134Google Scholar
  6. Belousek, D. W. 2000b‘‘Statistics, symmetry, and (in)distinguishability in Bohmian mechanics’‘Found. Phys.30153164Google Scholar
  7. D. W. Belousek, ‘‘Interpretation and ontology in modern physics’’, Metascience 460–467 (2000c).Google Scholar
  8. Belousek, D. W. 2003a‘‘Formalism, ontology, and methodology in Bohmian mechanics’‘Found. Sci.8109172Google Scholar
  9. Belousek, D. W. 2003b‘‘Nonseparability, nonsupervenience, and quantum ontology’‘Philosophy of Science70791811Google Scholar
  10. Neumann, J. 1955Mathematical Foundations of Quantum MechanicsPrinceton University PressPrinceton, NJGoogle Scholar
  11. Dirac, P. A. M. 1958The Principles of Quantum Mechanics4Oxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Bohm, D. 1952‘‘A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden variables’, I and II’‘Phys. Rev.85166193Google Scholar
  13. Duhem, P. 1982The Aim and Structure of Physical TheoryPrinceton UniversityPrinceton, NJGoogle Scholar
  14. Einstein, A. 1933‘‘On the method of theoretical physics’‘Einstein, A. eds. Ideas and OpinionsCrown BooksNew York2702761954Google Scholar
  15. Einstein, A. 1936‘‘Physics and reality’‘Einstein, A. eds. Ideas and OpinionsCrown BooksNew York2903231954Google Scholar
  16. Einstein, A. 1949‘‘Autobiographical Notes’‘Schilpp, P. A. eds. Albert Einstein: Philosopher–ScientistOpen Court PressLasalle, ILGoogle Scholar
  17. Cushing, J. T. 1990a‘‘Is scientific methodology interestingly atemporal?’‘Br. J. Philos. Sci.41177194Google Scholar
  18. Laudan, L. 1984aScience and ValuesUniversity of California PressBerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  19. Shapere, D. 1980‘‘The character of scientific change’‘Nickles, T. eds. Scientific Discovery, Logic and RationalityReidelDordrecht61116Google Scholar
  20. Shapere, D. 1984‘‘Objectivity, rationality, and scientific change’‘Proc Philos. Sci. Assoc.2637663Google Scholar
  21. McMullin, E. 1988‘‘The shaping of scientific rationality: construction and constraint’’, in Construction and Constraint: The Shaping of Scientific RationalityUniversity of Notre Dame PressNotre Dame147Google Scholar
  22. McMullin, E. 1984‘‘A case for scientific realism’‘Leplin, J. eds. Scientific RealismUniversity of California PressBerkeley840Google Scholar
  23. Cartwright, N. 1983How the Laws of Physics LieClarendon PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Laudan, L. 1984‘‘A confutation of convergent realism’‘Leplin, J. eds. Scientific RealismUniversity of California PressBerkeley218249Google Scholar
  25. Worral, J. 1989‘‘Structural realism: The best of both worlds?’‘Dialectica4399124Google Scholar
  26. Redhead, M. 1995From Physics to MetaphysicsCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Cao, T. Y. 1997Conceptual Developments of 20th Century Field TheoriesCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. French, S. R. 1998‘‘On the withering away of physical objects’‘Castellani, E. eds. Interpreting Bodies: Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern PhysicsPrinceton UniversityPrinceton, NJ93113Google Scholar
  29. French, S. R. 1999‘‘Models and mathematics in physics: the role of group theory’‘Butterfield, J.Pagonis, C. eds. From Physics to PhilosophyCambridge University PressCambridge187207Google Scholar
  30. Lakatos, I. 1978The Methodology of Scientific Research ProgrammesCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Cushing, J. T. 1995‘‘Quantum tunneling times: a crucial test for the causal program?’‘Found. Phys.25269280Google Scholar
  32. Kuhn, T. S. 1977‘‘Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice’’, in The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and ChangeUniversity of Chicago PressChicago320339Google Scholar
  33. Newton-Smith, W. H. 1981The Rationality of ScienceRoutledge & Kegan PaulLondonGoogle Scholar
  34. McMullin, E. 1983‘‘Values in science’‘Proc. Philos. Sci. Assoc.2328Google Scholar
  35. Post, H. 1971‘‘Correspondence, invariance and heuristics’‘Studies in History and Philosophy of Science2213255Google Scholar
  36. Ford, J., Mantica, G. 1992‘‘Does quantum mechanics obey the correspondence principle? Is it complete?’‘Amer. J. Phys.6010861098Google Scholar
  37. Ballentine, L. E. 1990Quantum MechanicsPrentice HallEnglewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  38. Ballentine, L. E. 1996‘‘The emergence of classical properties from quantum mechanics’‘Clifton, R. eds. Perspectives on Quantum Reality: Non-Relativistic, Relativistic, and Field-TheoreticKluwerDordrecht111124Google Scholar
  39. Holland, P. R. 1993The Quantum Theory of Motion: An Account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum MechanicsCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Holland, P. R. 1996‘‘Is quantum mechanics universal?’‘Cushing, J. T.Fine, A.Goldstein, S. eds. Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An AppraisalKluwerDordrecht99110Google Scholar
  41. Cushing, J. T. 2000‘‘Bohmian insights into quantum chaos’‘ Philos. Sci.67, (Proceedings)S430S445Google Scholar
  42. Cushing, J. T., Bowman, G. 1999‘‘Bohmian mechanics and chaos’‘Butterfield, J.Pagonis, C. eds. From Physics to PhilosophyCambridge University PressCambridge90107Google Scholar
  43. Born, M. 1971The Born-Einstein LettersWalkerNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Einstein, A. 1953‘‘Elementaire Überlegungen zur Interpretation der Grundlagen der Quanten-Mechanik’’, in Scientific Papers Presented to Max BornHafner New York3340Google Scholar
  45. Rescher, N. 1999The Limits of ScienceUniversity of Pittsburgh PressPittsburghrev. ed.Google Scholar
  46. Weinberg, S. 1993Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist’s Search for the Ultimate Laws of NatureVintage BooksNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Cushing, J. T. 1990bTheory Construction and Selection in Modern Physics: The S-MatrixCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Maudlin, T. 1994Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern PhysicsBlackwellCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  49. Cushing, J. T. 1996‘‘What measurement problem?’‘Clifton, R. eds. Perspectives on Quantum Reality: Non-Relativistic, Relativistic, and Field-TheoreticKluwerDordrecht167181Google Scholar
  50. Belousek, D. W. 1997‘‘Perspectives on quantum reality: a critical survey’‘Stud. History Philos. Modern Phys.28415420Google Scholar
  51. Shimony, A. 1993Search for a Naturalistic Worldview, Volume I: Scientific Methodology and EpistemologyCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Ghirardi, G. C. 2002‘‘Making quantum theory compatible with realism’‘Found. Sci.71147Google Scholar
  53. Rescher, N. 1978Peirce’s Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of Notre Dame PressNotre DameGoogle Scholar
  54. Kuhn, T. S. 1970The Structure of Scientific Revolutions2University of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  55. Belousek, D. W. 1998b‘‘Husserl on scientific method and conceptual change: a realist appraisal’‘Synthese1157198Google Scholar
  56. Belousek, D. W. 1998a‘‘Falsification, the Duhem-Quine thesis and scientific realism: from a phenomenological point of view’‘J. Br. Soc. Phenomenol.29145161Google Scholar
  57. Ben-Menahem, Y. 1990‘‘Equivalent descriptions’‘Br. J. Philos. Sci.41261279Google Scholar
  58. Mill, J. S. 1974On LibertyPenguin BooksLondonGoogle Scholar
  59. Rawls, J. 1996Political LiberalismColumbia University PressNew Yorkpaperback ed.Google Scholar
  60. Klee, R. 1997Introduction to the Philosophy of Science: Cutting Nature at its SeamsOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  61. Jones, R. 1991‘‘Realism about what?’‘Philos. Sci.58185202Google Scholar
  62. Shankar, R. 1980Principles of Quantum MechanicsPlenumNew YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Theology FacultyLithuania Christian CollegeKlaipedaLithuania

Personalised recommendations