[PhilPhys] Workshop: Scientific Realism about the Quantum State (Leeds, 9 September)

[Juha Saatsi]

Reminder:

*'Scientific Realism about the Quantum State' – workshop *

> 9 September 2015
>
> University of Leeds
> Centre for the History and Philosophy of Science
>
> This workshop examines recent debates about the nature of the quantum
> state (e.g. epistemic vs. ontic conceptions of the quantum state) in the
> broader context of scientific (anti-)realism.
>
>
> *Speakers*:
>
> Simon Friederich (Groningen)
> Ruth Kastner (UMD)
> Owen Maroney (Oxford)
> Chris Timpson (Oxford)
>
> ---------------
>
> *Programme*:
>
> 9:30 Coffee and Welcome
>
> 9:45 – 11:15 Simon Friederich (Groningen)
> ‘Interpreting Quantum Theory: A Therapeutic Approach’
>
> 11:15 – 12:45 Chris Timpson (Oxford)
> ‘Realist and Anti-Realist Quantum Theory: The quantum state and
> explanation’
>
> Lunch
>
> 13:45 – 15:15 Ruth Kastner (University of Maryland)
> ‘Two misconceptions in the usual approaches to realism in quantum
> mechanics’
>
> Coffee
>
> 16:30 – 18:00 Owen Maroney (Oxford)
> Title: TBA
>
> 18:00 –     Pub and workshop dinner
>
>
> ------------------------
>
> *Venue*:
>
> Room G36, Baines Wing, School of PRHS, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT
> For directions see
> http://www.teachingspace.leeds.ac.uk/building_details.asp?ID=1
>
> There is no registration fee, but please contact Juha Saatsi (
> J.T.Saatsi at leeds.ac.uk) by Friday 4th September if you plan to attend or
> have any questions about the event.
>
> The workshop is part of the ARHC Scientific Realism and the Quantum Project
>
>
>
> *Abstracts:*
>
> Ruth Kaster
> (University of Maryland)
>
> ‘Two misconceptions in the usual approaches to realism in quantum
> mechanics’
>
> This talk will identify two misconceptions hampering the discussion of
> realism in quantum theory. These are (1) the status of the measurement
> problem and (2) typical definitions of 'real'. Concerning (1), it has
> become something of a dogma that there is no way to reconcile the unitary
> evolution of the wave function with the occurrence of single, determinate
> outcomes (apart from ad hoc additions or modifications to the theory, or an
> Everettian picture with known serious deficiencies). However, this
> predominant pessimistic view has been challenged; the challenge will be
> reviewed here. Concerning (2), common definitions of 'real' include
> metaphysical presumptions that can and should be dropped, just as previous
> metaphysical presumptions, such as absolute space and time, needed to be
> dropped in order for progress in physics to be made.
>
>
>
> Simon Friederich
> (Groningen)
>
> “Interpreting Quantum Theory: A Therapeutic Approach -- a condensed
> account”
>
> Can the epistemic conception of quantum states help to dissolve the main
> problems in the foundations of quantum theory? I give a tentatively
> positive answer to this question, based on a version of the epistemic
> conception that acknowledges the notion of a state assignment being
> performed correctly while rejecting the notion of a true quantum state of a
> quantum system. In addition, I argue by appeal to David Lewis' Principal
> Principle that quantum theory is 'locally causal' inasmuch as quantum
> probabilities, properly construed, are independent of what occurs at
> space-like distance.
>
>
>
> Chris Timpson
> (University of Oxford)
>
> “Realist and Anti-Realist Quantum Theory: The quantum state and
> explanation”
>
> In discussing scientific realism and quantum theory, it is important first
> of all to distinguish between realism about quantum theory generically, and
> the more specific doctrine of realism about the quantum state in
> particular. The latter implies the former, but not vice versa. Arguably,
> one also needs to make more precise what would be meant by 'quantum theory'
> in the first place, before one can begin to talk about being realist (or
> otherwise) about it. Any realist approach to quantum theory of course then
> faces the two key problems: how it deals with the problem of measurement,
> and how it deals with EPR-Bell scenarios. A large part of the motivation
> towards anti-realism regarding quantum theory is then the oddity and
> apparent bad behaviour of the world described if one takes a realist
> approach. Yet the main difficulties for anti-realist approaches are the
> main strengths of realist positions: anti-realism about quantum theory
> seems to lead one towards a theory too denuded of descriptive content to
> underwrite the explanations that quantum theory in fact offers. In this
> talk I will review these matters, with a particular focus on the
> distinctive anti-realism (about the quantum state, and about the quantum
> formalism quite generally) of the quantum Bayesians, or QBists.
>
>
>
> Owen Maroney
> (University of Oxford)
>
> “Testing the reality of the quantum state”
>
> Abstract: A motivation for the epistemic view of quantum states lies in
> the observation of qualitative similarities between characteristic
> properties of non-orthogonal quantum wavefunctions and between overlapping
> classical probability distributions.  The "quantum state", in this view,
> just represents the epistemic uncertainty associated with a set of state
> preparation procedures performed in the lab.  However, by looking at the
> numerical values of those properties of probability distributions, I will
> show this kind of epistemic view cannot account for the actual values shown
> by experiment.  I will argue that this provides strong support for the idea
> that quantum states represent physically real properties.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listbox.elte.hu/mailman/private/philphys/attachments/20150827/e98b8221/attachment.html>