Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:55:25.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantum Mechanics and Ordinary Language: The Fuzzy Link

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Peter J. Lewis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that the link between quantum language and ordinary language must be “fuzzier” than the traditional eigenstate-eigenvalue link. In the context of spontaneous-collapse theories, Albert and Loewer (1996) argue that the form of this fuzzy link is a matter of convention, and can be freely chosen to minimize anomalies for those theories. I defend the position that the form of the link is empirical, and could be such as to render collapse theories idle. This means that defenders of spontaneous-collapse theories must gamble that the actual form of the link renders such theories tenable.

Type
Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 70 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers , December 2003 , pp. 1437 - 1446
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 would like to thank Jeff Barrett, Jeremy Butterfield, P. D. Magnus, and Bradley Monton for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

Aicardi, F., Borsellino, A., Ghirardi, G. C., and Grassi, R. (1991), “Dynamical Models for State-Vector Reduction: Do They Ensure That Measurements Have Outcomes?”, Dynamical Models for State-Vector Reduction: Do They Ensure That Measurements Have Outcomes? 4:109–128.Google Scholar
Albert, David Z. (1992), Quantum Mechanics and Experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Albert, David Z. and Loewer, Barry (1996), “Tails of Schrödinger's Cat”, in Clifton, R. (ed.), Perspectives on Quantum Reality. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, Rob, and Monton, Bradley (1999), “Losing Your Marbles in Wave-Function Collapse Theories”, Losing Your Marbles in Wave-Function Collapse Theories 50:697–717.Google Scholar
Cordero, Alberto (1999), “Are GRW Tails as Bad as They Say?”, Are GRW Tails as Bad as They Say? 66:S59–S71.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C., Grassi, R., and Benatti, F. (1995), “Describing the Macroscopic World: Closing the Circle within the Dynamical Reduction Program”, Describing the Macroscopic World: Closing the Circle within the Dynamical Reduction Program 25:5–38.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., and Weber, T. (1986), “Unified Dynamics for Microscopic and Macroscopic Systems”, Unified Dynamics for Microscopic and Macroscopic Systems D34:470–491.Google Scholar
Lewis, Peter J. (1997), “Quantum Mechanics, Orthogonality and Counting”, Quantum Mechanics, Orthogonality and Counting 48:313–328.Google Scholar
Lewis, Peter J. (2000) “What Is It Like to Be Schrödinger's Cat?”, What Is It Like to Be Schrödinger's Cat? 60:22–29.Google Scholar
Lockwood, Michael (1989), Mind, Brain and the Quantum. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Price, Huw (1996), Time's Arrow and Archimedes'Point. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar