Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T21:04:08.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantum Theory and Explanatory Discourse: Endgame for Understanding?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

James T. Cushing
James T. Cushing*
Affiliation:
Department of Physics University of Notre Dame
*
‡Send reprint requests to the author, Department of Physics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Empirical adequacy, formal explanation and understanding are distinct goals of science. While no a priori criterion for understanding should be laid down, there may be inherent limitations on the way we are able to understand explanations of physical phenomena. I examine several recent contributions to the exercise of fashioning an explanatory discourse to mold the formal explanation provided by quantum mechanics to our modes of understanding. The question is whether we are capable of truly understanding (or comprehending) quantum phenomena, as opposed to simply accepting the formalism and certain irreducible quantum correlations. The central issue is that of understanding versus merely redefining terms to paper over our ignorance.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , September 1991, pp. 337 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

Partial support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation under Grants No. SE5-8606472 and No. SE5-8705469. I thank Ernan McMullin for numerous discussions on the subject of this paper and for his comments on an early version of the manuscript, even though his views on several of the relevant issues are considerably different from mine. Also, extensive comments by a referee were genuinely helpful for final revisions prior to publication.

References

Achinstein, P. (1969), “Explanation”, in N. Rescher (ed.), Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Monograph 3. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 9–29.Google Scholar
Achinstein, P. (1971), Law and Explanation: An Essay in the Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Achinstein, P. (1983), The Nature of Explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Achinstein, P. (1985), “The Pragmatic Character of Explanation”, in P. D. Asquith and P. Kitcher (eds.), PSA 1984, vol. 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 275–292.Google Scholar
Apel, K. O. ([1979] 1984), Understanding and Explanation: A Transcendental-Pragmatic Perspective. Translated by G. Warnke. Originally published as Die Erklären-Verstehen-Kontroverse in Transzendental-Pragmatischer Sicht (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aspect, A.; Dalibard, J.; and Roger, G. (1982), “Experimental Tests of Bell's Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers”, Physical Review Letters 49: 1804–1807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachelard, G. ([1934] 1984), The New Scientific Spirit. Translated by A. Goldhammer. Originally published as Le Nouvel Esprit Scientifique. (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Bell, J. S. (1964), “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox”, Physics 1: 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. S. (1966), “On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics”, Reviews of Modern Physics 38: 447–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. S. (1987), Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bohm, D. (1951), Quantum Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bohm, D. (1987), “Hidden Variables and the Implicate Order”, in Hiley and Peat, pp. 33–65.Google Scholar
Bohm, D. and Hiley, B. J. (1989), “Non-Locality and Locality in the Stochastic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, Physics Reports 172: 93–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromberger, S. (1985), “On Pragmatic and Scientific Explanation: Comments on Achinstein's and Salmon's Papers”, in P. D. Asquith and P. Kitcher (eds.), PSA 1984, vol. 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 306–325.Google Scholar
Costa De Beauregard, O. (1983), “Running Backwards the Mermin Device: Causality in the EPR Correlations”, American Journal of Physics 51: 513–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushing, J. T. (1982), “Models and Methodologies in Current Theoretical High-Energy Physics”, Synthese 50: 5–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushing, J. T. (1988), “Foundational Problems In and Methodological Lessons From Quantum Field Theory”, in H. Brown and R. Harrè (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Field Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 25–39.Google Scholar
Cushing, J. T. (1991), “Copenhagen Hegemony: Need It Be So?”, in P. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt (eds.), Symposium on the Foundation of Modern Physics 1990. Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 89–98.Google Scholar
Cushing, J. T. (Forthcoming), “Causal Quantum Theory: Why a Nonstarter?”, in F. Selleri (ed.), The Wave Particle Quality. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Cushing, J. T. and McMullin, E. (eds.) (1989), Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1954), Ideas and Opinions. London: Souvenir Press.Google Scholar
Einstein, A.; Podolsky, B.; and Rosen, N. (1935), “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?”, Physical Review 47: 770–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. (1982a), “Antinomies of Entanglement: The Puzzling Case of the Tangled Statistics”, The Journal of Philosophy 79: 733–747.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (1982b), “Hidden Variables, Joint Probability, and the Bell Inequalities”, Physical Review Letters 48: 291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. (1984), “And Not Anti-Realism Either”, Nous 18: 51–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fine, A. (1986), “Unnatural Attitudes: Realist and Instrumentalist Attachments to Science”, Mind 95: 149–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. (1989), “Do Correlations Need to be Explained?”, in Cushing and McMullin, pp. 175–194.Google Scholar
Folse, H. J. (1987), “Causality and Reality in Quantum Physics”. Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Metaphysical Society of America, New York.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1974), “Explanation and Scientific Understanding”, The Journal of Philosophy 71: 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C.; Rimini, A.; and Weber, T. (1986), “Unified Dynamics for Microscopic and Macroscopic Systems”, Physical Review D34: 470–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiley, B. J. and Peat, F. D. (eds.) (1987), Quantum Implications: Essays in Honor of David Bohm. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Huang, K. (1963), Statistical Mechanics. New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Jarrett, J. (1984), “On the Physical Significance of the Locality Conditions in the Bell Arguments”, Nous 18: 569–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelvin, Lord (Thomson, William) (1884), Notes of Lectures on Molecular Dynamics and the Wave Theory of Light. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Krips, H. (1987), The Metaphysics of Quantum Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Margenau, H. (1950), The Nature of Physical Reality. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. (1989), “The Explanation of Distant Action: Historical Notes”, in Cushing and McMullin, pp. 272–302.Google Scholar
Meyerson, É. ([1908] 1930) Identity and Reality. Translated by K. Lowenberg. Originally published as Identité et Realité (Paris: Librairies Félix Alcan et Guillaumin Réunies). London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, M. J. (1984), “Life in a Multidimensional World”, Scientometrics 6: 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, M. J. (1988), “‘Explain’ in the Natural Sciences: Are Our Criteria Biased?” Preprint. University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Peres, A. and Zurek, W. H. (1982), “Is Quantum Theory Universally Valid?”, American Journal of Physics 50: 807–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primas, H. (1983), Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics and Reductionism: Perspectives in Theoretical Chemistry. 2d ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohrlich, F. (1986), “Reality and Quantum Mechanics”, in D. M. Greenberger (ed.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Vol. 480, New Techniques and Ideas in Quantum Measurement Theory. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, pp. 373–381.Google Scholar
Rohrlich, F. (1987), From Paradox to Reality: Our New Concepts of the Physical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1984), Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1985), “Scientific Explanation: Three Basic Conceptions”, in P. D. Asquith and P. Kitcher (eds.), PSA 1984, vol. 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 293–305.Google Scholar
Schweber, S. S. (1986), “Feynman and the Visualization of Space-Time Processes”, Reviews of Modern Physics 58: 449–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimony, A. (1984), “Controllable and Uncontrollable Nonlocality”, in S. Kamefuchi (ed.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Tokyo: Physical Society of Japan, pp. 225–230.Google Scholar
Shimony, A. (1989), “The Search for a World View Which Can Accommodate Our Knowledge of Microphysics”, in Cushing and McMullin, pp. 25–37.Google Scholar
Stapp, H. P. (1985), “Bell's Theorem and the Foundations of Quantum Physics”, American Journal of Physics 53: 306–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, P. (1986), “Relational Holism and Quantum Mechanics”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37: 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, P. (1989), “Relativity, Relational Holism and the Bell Inequalities”, in Cushing and McMullin, pp. 208–223.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1961), Foresight and Understanding. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1985), “EPR: When is a Correlation Not a Mystery?”, in P. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt (eds.), Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, pp. 113–129.Google Scholar
Vigier, J. P. (1982), “Non-Locality, Causality and Aether in Quantum Mechanics”, Astronomische Nachrichten 303 1: 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigier, J. P.; Dewdney, C.; Holland, P. R.; and Kyprianidis, A. (1987), “Causal Particle Trajectories and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, in Hiley and Peat, pp. 169–204.Google Scholar
von Wright, G. H. (1971), Explanation and Understanding. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Watkins, J. W. N. (1984), Science and Skepticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whewell, W. ([1857] 1967), History of the Inductive Sciences, vols. 1–3. Reprint. (Originally published by London: Parker & Son.) London: Frank Cass & Co.Google Scholar