Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 00:26:03 -0700
Subject: Re: Schrodinger's Cat


  I took a seminar in the fall of 1995 on the philosophy of 
  quantum mechanics.  One textbook we used was David Z 
  Albert's _Quantum Mechanics and Experience_ (Harvard 
  University Press, 1992).  This I think poses some of the 
  issues rather entertainingly (although the style is 
  deceptive--it's not as easy as it first may seem, not 
  surprisingly, given the subject matter).  Non-physicists 
  who are not afraid of a little bit of math should find 
  this book manageable.
  
  What I took from the seminar is a strong sense that Rahul 
  is right--reality at the quantum level is deeply puzzling. 
  Whatever new scientific advances are made will not remove 
  the astonishing character of reality at the quantum level 
  (any such advances will surely not provide us with a 
  restoration of commonsense even if they take us beyond 
  quantum mechanics as currently understood)--quite simply 
  there are NO easy outs.  And Bell's Theorem seems to the 
  real issue nowadays rather than Schrodinger's Cat as such. 
  The options are none of them attractive:
  
  1)  Abandon relativity theory
  
  2)  Abandon quantum mechanics
  
  3)  Abandon some rock-bottom rules of logic
  
  4)  Admit backwards-in-time causality (see Huw Price, 'A 
  Neglected Route to Realism about Quantum Mechanics'  
  _Mind_, July 1994)
  
  5)  Abandon our ordinary notions of locality (one version 
  of this option--nonlocal realism--allows us to retain 
  hidden variables but at a 'global' level, and is favored 
  by an increasing number of philosophers including my own 
  teacher Frank Artzenius--see his papers which I list 
  below).  I think many physicists are behind the curve on 
  the 'global realism' option because of a failure (on their 
  part) of the imagination and of willingness to dialogue 
  with people who ask them questions to which they don't 
  know the answers.  Pace Rahul, physicists are not always 
  the angels, nor philosophers the demons, in this debate.
  
  6)  Wallow in pseudoscientific 'mysticism' (not all 
  popularizers do this, Paul Davies being IMHO an example of 
  a physicist who writes popularly but sensibly about the 
  philosophical questions raised by quantum mechanics).
  
  7)  Refuse to consider the real and deeply puzzling issues 
  quantum physics raises for our conception of reality.  
  Some physicists seem happy enough to adopt this option, 
  which is fine as regards the practical doing of physics, 
  but is irresponsible in the larger intellectual context.
  (not that I mean that all physicists should be 
  philosophers too, but that they should at least be alive 
  to the issues).
  
  I recommend (at least to Rahul) the following papers by 
  Frank Artzenius
  
  'Causal Paradoxes in Special Relativity' _British Journal 
  for the Philosophy of Science_, vol. 41, 1990.
  
  'How To Discover that the Real is Unreal' vol. 38, 1993
  
  'Relativistic Hidden Variable Theories?' _Erkenntnis_, 
  vol. 41, 1994.
  
  'Spacelike Connections'  _British Journal for the 
  Philosophy of Science_ vol. 45, 1994
  
  This is all serious stuff by the way, not at all 
  pseudoscientific or 'mystical'.
  
  Peter
  pburns-AT-lmumail.lmu.edu
  PS--I am going away for a week tomorrow so if you want to 
  reply to this, send mail to my private address rather 
  than, or in addition to the list.


     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---