[PhilPhys] Two Days Workshop: Philosophical Perspectives on Understanding Quantum Mechanics - Brussels 8-9 October
Christian de Ronde
cderonde at vub.ac.be
Mon Sep 28 18:47:59 CEST 2009
This mail is to invite you to a Workshop in Brussels we are organizing at
Center Leo Apostel.
Feel free to post the data around.
http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/workshop/index.shtml
http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/workshop/WKS2009/WKS2009.pdf
Best,
Christian de Ronde
Center Leo Apostel for Interdisciplinary Studies (CLEA)
and Foundations of the Exact Sciences (FUND)
Department of Mathematics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
*Two Days Workshop: Philosophical Perspectives on Understanding Quantum
Mechanics*
* *
*8-9 October, 2009, CLEA, Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Brussels***
Pleinlaan 2 · B-1050 Brussel
* *
PROGRAM
* *
*Thursday 8 October from 16.00 to 19.00 in the Promotiezaal D.2.01*
*
*
*16.00 – 17.00 The SCOP-formalism: an operational approach to quantum
mechanics*
Bart D’Hooghe
Center Leo Apostel (CLEA) and Foundations of the Exact Sciences (FUND)
Vrije Universiteit Brussel* *
* *
*17.00 – 18.00 Quantum Mechanics, Contextuality and
Correlations as *
* Actual Elements of Physical Reality*
*
*
Christian de Ronde
Center Leo Apostel (CLEA) and Foundations of the Exact Sciences (FUND)
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
* *
*18.00 – 19.00 The whisper and the rage. **An essay in humanism***
Wim Christiaens
Center Leo Apostel
* ***
Friday 9 October from 13.00 to 19.00 in the lokaal E.0.06 and D.0
*13.00 – 14.00 Who understands the turtle that stands under the
quantum world?***
Sven Aerts
Center Leo Apostel (CLEA) and Foundations of the Exact Sciences
(FUND)
Vrije Universiteit Brussel**
* *
14.00 – 15.00 Analyzing passion at a distance: progress in
experimental metaphysics?
Michiel Seevinck
Center for History and *Foundations* of Science, Utrecht University
* *
*15.00 – 16.00 Reverse Epistemology and Quantum Measurement: an
Outline of the Approach*
Karin Verelst
Center Leo Apostel (CLEA) and Foundations of the Exact Sciences (FUND)
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
* *
*16.00 – 17.00 Coffee break*
* *
*17.00 – 18.00 Reflective Metaphysics : **Understanding Quantum
Mechanics *
*from a Kantian Standpoint***
Michel Bitbol
Centre de Recherche en Épistémologie Appliquée
CNRS/Ecole Polytechnique, Paris, France
18.00 – 19.00 The world according to quantum mechanics: a matter
of perspective Dennis Dieks Center for History and *Foundations* of Science,
Utrecht University
* *
*Organized by: Christian de Ronde, Sven Aerts and Diederik Aerts*
Contact: *cderonde at vub.ac.be*
*
*
*
*
*ABSTRACTS: *
*
*
**
*
Who understands the turtle that stands under the quantum world?
Sven Aerts
Center Leo Apostel (CLEA) and Foundations of the Exact Sciences (FUND)
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
If a theory claims verifiable prediction of a very large variety of
phenomena, the question of its relationship to the world becomes notoriously
difficult to ignore. We hope to increase our understanding of the universe
by having a better understanding of the theory. Such is the case with
quantum theory and yet it is often said we don't understand quantum theory.
After almost a century of intense debate and research we still find it
difficult to agree upon an acceptable ontology that is consistent with
quantum theory. We do seem to agree however on how to apply the theory and
famous physicists like Fermi and Feynman argue one should stop wondering why
quantum mechanics is the way it is. It seems however beyond dispute that
research into the foundations of quantum theory has provided us with a
better understanding, if not of acceptable solutions, then at least of the
types of problems we encounter. Much of the debate on the interpretation of
quantum theory seems centred around two main problems. The first is the
so-called measurement problem. We will argue that understanding the
measurement problem is not so much a matter of exploring the consequences of
the measurement problem for our worldview, but rather that the consistency
and completeness of the theory are at stake. We argue that any theory that
includes in its description the process of observation of the very values
that are observed, is liable to some form of measurement problem. The
question then shifts from “why do outcomes in a quantum universe behave as
classical quantities” to: “is it necessary to include the process of
observation in the description of quantum phenomena?” This directly leads us
to the second main obstacle in our attempt to understand quantum theory:
contextuality. Contextuality in particular seems to stand in the way for a
direct interpretation of the correspondence between the theory and the
world. The inclusion of an active process of observation limits the set of
experimental setups and hence of the possible actualizations of reality. In
performing an experiment, we get to decide among which options nature has to
choose. And in doing so we deny forever not only the knowledge of the values
of the observables we didn't care to measure, but even the mere possibility
of attributing values to them in a unique way. We will give a completely
transparent but surprisingly persistent example of contextuality in visual
perception and explore in what respect it can serve as a metaphor for its
quantum analogue.
Reflective Metaphysics : Understanding Quantum Mechanics from a Kantian
Standpoint
Michel Bitbol
Centre de Recherche en Épistémologie Appliquée, CNRS/Ecole Polytechnique,
Paris, France
Instead of either formulating new metaphysical images (as realists would do)
or rejecting any metaphysical attempt (as empiricists would do), the case of
quantum mechanics might well require from us a complete redefinition of the
nature and task of metaphysics. The sought redefinition can be performed in
the spirit of Kant, according to whom metaphysics is the disciplin of the
boundaries of human knowledge. This can be called a “reflective” conception
of metaphysics. In this paper, each one of the most popular
“interpretations” of quantum mechanics is shown to be naturally associated
with a variety of Kant-like reflective metaphysics. Then, two well-known
“paradoxes” of quantum mechanics (the measurement problem and the EPR
correlations) are reformulated by way of this reflective attitude, and they
are thereby “dissolved”. Along with this perspective, quantum mechanics
becomes one of the most elegant and understandable theories of the history
of physics in addition of being one of the most efficient. The only point
that must be clarified is why it looks culturally so difficult to accept a
reflective and non-ontological standpoint on physical theories.
The whisper and the rage. An essay in humanism
Wim Christiaens
Center Leo Apostel
The history of Europe is the history of the logos. The relationship with the
logos has been one of love and hate, especially for the people closest to
it, the philosophers. Most recently, a number of them, irrationalists like
Heidegger, Deleuze, Derrida..., tried to substract themselves from the
logos: the logos trying to substract itself from the logos, a real
acrobatics of thought. More rationally inclined collegues reacted by locking
themselves within the formalism of their reasoning.
Both options are privileges of “the beautiful soul”: they are not rooted in
a situation of hardship and need. Which is why we will call both
irrationalism (or post-modernism) and rationalism (or analytical philosophy)
irrational rationalisms.
A number of socio-ideological and socio-economical crises like 1973, 1989,
2009 ... (not to mention the European civil war of 1914-1945) are
undermining the material basis for these privileges. Today we see that for
the first time since around 1900, as Europeans we are more and more required
to think from within a situation of real need and hardship again.
To lift the veil, to find a project, a goal, a praxis, we will have to bite
the bullet: we will need a proper understanding of the logos. Praxis
requires rationality. Rationality cannot found itself: there is no rational
foundation for rationality (here post-modernism and analytical philosophy of
science agree). Nevertheless praxis requires rationality. Let us then
provide an irrational foundation for rationality. This we call rational
rationality or humanism.
In my presentation I will develop some of the concepts required to let
rationality rise from the irrational. Two such concepts are the whisper and
the rage.
The world according to quantum mechanics: a matter of perspective
Dennis Dieks Center for History and Foundations of Science, Utrecht
University
One of the main areas of the present-day philosophy of physics is concerned
with what might be called “scientific metaphysics”: the attempt to come up
with a coherent picture of what the world could be like, given the results
of modern scientific theories. Quantum mechanics is notorious for the
difficulties it presents for this project. In this talk we shall argue that
part of these difficulties derives from the fact that the world picture
suggested by quantum mechanics is very different from what we are used to in
classical physics. Indeed, there are good reasons to believe that quantum
theory is trying to tell us that descriptions of the world should be
fundamentally perspectival. That is, the properties of physical systems
should always be defined with respect to a “point of view”. This
perspectivalism should be understood, however, in an objective way, without
the introduction of subjective elements. Pursuing this idea leads to a new
notion of objectivity, according to which properties are basically
relational.
The SCOP-formalism: an operational approach to quantum mechanics Bart
D’Hooghe
Center Leo Apostel (CLEA) and Foundations of the Exact Sciences (FUND)
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
We present the SCOP-formalism, an operational approach to quantum mechanics
in which a physical entity is defined by the structure of its set of states,
set of properties and the (measurement) contexts which can be applied to
this entity. If the corresponding State-COntext-Property-System (SCOP)
satisfies a specific set of ‘quantum axioms’, it fits in a quantum
mechanical representation in Hilbert space. We present a model in which the
maximal change of state of the system due to interaction with the
measurement context is controlled by a parameter N, representing the number
of possible outcomes. In the case N=2 the system reduces to a model for the
spin measurements on a quantum spin-1/2 particle. In the limit N ® ∞ the
system is classical. Surprisingly, for the intermediate cases it is
impossible to define an orthocomplementation on the set of properties.
Another interesting feature is that the probability of a state transition
also depends on the context which induces it. This contrasts sharply with
standard quantum mechanics, where Gleason's theorem states the uniqueness of
the state transition probability and independent of measurement context. We
show that if the state transition probabilities satisfy a Gleason-like
condition, i.e. transition probability is independent of which measurement
context induces the change of state, then the lattice of properties is
orthocomplemented.
Analyzing passion at a distance: progress in experimental metaphysics?
Michiel Seevinck
Center for History and Foundations of Science, Utrecht University
Violations of the well-known Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality
have been frequently analyzed in terms of the well-known conditions of
Parameter Independence (PI) and Outcome Independence (OI), introduced by
Jarrett and Shimony in the mid-1980ties. These conditions jointly imply the
factorisability (Bell's local causality) needed to derive this inequality.
In the doctrine of Experimental Metaphysics it is violation of the latter
condition (i.e. OI) that is supposed to be responsible for the violation of
the CHSH inequality, and it has been extensively argued by many philosophers
of this school that this is not an instance of action at a distance but of
some innocent 'passion at a distance': one passively comes to know the
faraway outcome, but one cannot actively change it. It is therefore
concluded that there is peaceful coexistence of quantum non-locality and
special relativity. This reasoning has been criticized by many, but it will
be here criticized differently by arguing that the very starting point of
this debate is flawed.
Upon closer scrutiny, both PI and OI are in fact conditions about obtaining
the *local* outcome and do not address the possibility of 'coming to know'
the *non-local* outcomes or settings. More technically, the conditions are
not about an increase in non-local predictability because of the
availability of non-local information. Therefore, they do not deal with
passion at a distance at all, and in fact, there has not been a satisfactory
analysis of it anywhere. Such an analysis will be given here.
It will be shown, based on the work of Pawlowski et al. (arXiv:0903.5042),
that within the framework of non-local realistic theories, where it is
assumed that the settings can be freely chosen, it is impossible to model a
violation of the CHSH inequality without having information in one
laboratory about *both* the setting and the outcome at the distant one.
Thus, the passion at a distance (the increase in non-local predictability)
displayed by models that violate the CHSH inequality is necessarily about
*both* the non-local settings and the outcomes, despite the fact that it is
*not* necessary that the models are both setting dependent (not PI) and
outcome dependent (not OI) in the Jarrett/Shimony sense.
I will argue that this finally allows for progress in the field after some
20+ years of fruitless Experimental Metaphysics. For the
non-philosophically inclined, it can be noted that these results are also
relevant for quantifying the classical resources needed to simulate quantum
communication and computation protocols.
Quantum Mechanics, Contextuality and Correlations as Elements of Physical
Reality
Christian de Ronde
Center Leo Apostel (CLEA) and Foundations of the Exact Sciences (FUND)
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Several years ago David Mermin presented what he called the Ithaca
interpretation of quantum mechanics (IIQM) which focuses on the possible
development of a relational account of physical reality. The IIQM founds its
solid ground on the so called SSC theorem which states that subsystem
correlations (for any resolution of the system into subsystems) are enough
to determine the state of the entire system uniquely. There are however two
no go theorems, namely, Cabello’s theorem and Seevinck’s theorem which block
the possibility of interpreting correlations as actual elements of (local)
physical reality. In this presentation we will address the tension which
appears from the mutual co-existence of the SSC theorem on the one hand, and
Cabello’s and Seevinck’s theorems on the other. We will show that there is a
valuable lesson to be learn in relation to correlations and their meaning in
terms of elements of physical reality.
Reverse Epistemology and Quantum Measurement: an Outline of the Approach
Karin Verelst
Center Leo Apostel (CLEA) and Foundations of the Exact Sciences (FUND)
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
An experimental observation is an event with its proper dynamics. This is
well known to any student of quantum mechanics, but what is less known is
what actually happens during that event. If we accept that the projection
postulate somehow refers to this event in the case of quantum measurements,
we still do not know much more than that what happens entails a kind of
“classicalisation” of the quantum phaenomenon while being observed. In this
contribution we shall attempt to develop a precise theoretical framework for
the notion ‘experimental observation’ in general, based on what I call a
reverse epistemology. Our first step consists in identifying a procedural
core common to different instances of the practice of “setting up an
experiment”, and to translate it back into the argumentative structure
underpinning (classical) logical inference. The basic idea of our approach
is that the application of such a specific observational procedure upon a
given part of the world comes down to an intervention which we characterise
as an ontological sieve, i.e., a two-step “classicalisation” of the original
thing into an object with praedicable properties, subject to logical
inference. The key to unlock this relationship will be the “elements of
reality” sensu Einstein, and developed by Piron and his successors in the
context of the so called Geneva School in operational quantum logic. In this
framework, an outline of a formally rigorous description of the notion of
“experimental observation” is presented. We shall work with the basic notion
of a state property system (SPS) as introduced by Aerts, and exploit the
work done on the connection between the complete orthomodular lattices that
describe SPS and certain closure spaces which impose a topology on the
system’s set of states. Typically, we envisage experimental set-ups of the
Stern-Gerlach type, but we claim that our approach is open to
generalisation.
**
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listbox.elte.hu/mailman/private/philphys/attachments/20090928/01909aa3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
PhilPhys - Philosophy of Physics Mail Group
Help & Archives: http://phil.elte.hu/PhilPhys
More information about the philphys
mailing list