Quantum Theory Needs No 'Interpretation' But 'Theoretical Formal-Conceptual Unity' (Or: Escaping Adan Cabello's "Map of Madness" With the Help of David Deutsch's Explanations)

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2008.00321v1
• Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 19:10:06 GMT
• Title: Quantum Theory Needs No 'Interpretation' But 'Theoretical Formal-Conceptual Unity' (Or: Escaping Adan Cabello's "Map of Madness" With the Help of David Deutsch's Explanations)
• Authors: Christian de Ronde
• Abstract summary: We argue that there are reasons to believe that the creation of 'interpretations' for the theory of quanta has functioned as a trap designed by anti-realists. We will argue that the key to escape the anti-realist trap of interpretation is to recognize that --as Einstein told Heisenberg almost one century ago-- it is only the theory which can tell you what can be observed.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In the year 2000, in a paper titled Quantum Theory Needs No 'Interpretation', Chris Fuchs and Asher Peres presented a series of instrumentalist arguments against the role played by 'interpretations' in QM. Since then --quite regardless of the publication of this paper-- the number of interpretations has experienced a continuous growth constituting what Adan Cabello has characterized as a "map of madness". In this work, we discuss the reasons behind this dangerous fragmentation in understanding and provide new arguments against the need of interpretations in QM which --opposite to those of Fuchs and Peres-- are derived from a representational realist understanding of theories --grounded in the writings of Einstein, Heisenberg and Pauli. Furthermore, we will argue that there are reasons to believe that the creation of 'interpretations' for the theory of quanta has functioned as a trap designed by anti-realists in order to imprison realists in a labyrinth with no exit. Taking as a standpoint the critical analysis by David Deutsch to the anti-realist understanding of physics, we attempt to address the references and roles played by 'theory' and 'observation'. In this respect, we will argue that the key to escape the anti-realist trap of interpretation is to recognize that --as Einstein told Heisenberg almost one century ago-- it is only the theory which can tell you what can be observed. Finally, we will conclude that what QM needs is not a new interpretation but instead, a theoretical (formal-conceptual) consistent, coherent and unified scheme which allows us to understand what the theory is really talking about.

Related papers

• Grounding Language about Belief in a Bayesian Theory-of-Mind [5.058204320571824]
  We take a step towards an answer by grounding the semantics of belief statements in a Bayesian theory-of-mind. By modeling how humans jointly infer coherent sets of goals, beliefs, and plans, our framework provides a conceptual role semantics for belief. We evaluate this framework by studying how humans attribute goals and beliefs while watching an agent solve a doors-and-keys gridworld puzzle.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T02:47:09Z)
• A Reply to Makelov et al. (2023)'s "Interpretability Illusion" Arguments [59.87080148922358]
  We argue that Makelov et al. (2023) see in practice are artifacts of their training and evaluation paradigms. Though we disagree with their core characterization, Makelov et al. (2023)'s examples and discussion have undoubtedly pushed the field of interpretability forward.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T10:27:42Z)
• The physics and metaphysics of the conceptuality interpretation of quantum mechanics [0.0]
  It has been argued that the difficulty in understanding quantum theory is our failed attempt to force onto it a wrong conceptual scheme. Many thinkers have suggested that we must surrender to the fact that our physical world is one of immanent powers and potencies. However, if on the one hand a potentiality puts the accent on the processes of change, responsible for the incessant shifts between actual and potential properties, on the other hand it does not tell what these changes are all about.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-14T10:00:49Z)
• Reply to "Comment on 'Why interference phenomena do not capture the essence of quantum theory' " [0.0]
  We argue that the phenomenology of interference that is traditionally regarded as problematic does not, in fact, capture the essence of quantum theory. It does so by demonstrating the existence of a physical theory, which we term the "toy field theory", that reproduces this phenomenology but which does not sacrifice the classical worldview.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-24T18:59:35Z)
• Interpretation of quantum theory: the quantum "grue-bleen" problem [0.0]
  We present a critique of the many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics, based on different pictures'' that describe the time evolution of an isolated quantum system. Without an externally imposed frame to restrict these possible pictures, the theory cannot yield non-trivial interpretational statements. We find that the grue-bleen'' problem is not restricted to quantum mechanics, but also affects other theories including classical Hamiltonian mechanics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-01T15:45:10Z)
• A dialog on the fate of information in black hole evaporation [77.34726150561087]
  We present two alternative perspectives for the resolution of Hawking's information puzzle in black hole evaporation. One of them is the central role played by the existence of the interior singularity that we expect to be replaced by a more fundamental quantum gravity formulation. Both views rely on the notion that the standard effective quantum field theoretic perspective would require some deep modifications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-17T16:21:22Z)
• Quantum realism: axiomatization and quantification [77.34726150561087]
  We build an axiomatization for quantum realism -- a notion of realism compatible with quantum theory. We explicitly construct some classes of entropic quantifiers that are shown to satisfy almost all of the proposed axioms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-10T18:08:42Z)
• Relativistic Constraints on Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics [0.0]
  It focuses on four main avenues of approach: (i) additional beables theories, (ii) dynamical collapse theories, (iii) Everettian, or "many-worlds" interpretations, and (iv) non-realist interpretations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-05T15:28:42Z)
• Testing quantum theory with thought experiments [4.847980206213335]
  How should one model systems that include agents who are themselves using quantum theory? We give a state-of-the-art overview on quantum thought experiments involving observers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-09T18:08:23Z)
• Exploiting Game Theory for Analysing Justifications [13.72913891724593]
  We continue the study of justification theory by means of three major contributions. The first is studying the relation between justification theory and game theory. The second contribution is studying under which condition two different dialects of justification theory coincide. The third contribution is establishing a precise criterion of when a semantics induced by justification theory yields consistent results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-04T14:45:08Z)
• Understanding Quantum Theory [0.0]
  This paper attempts to clarify some issues that are discussed in the interpretations of quantum theory. One of the main points of this paper is the role of predictions in understanding any theory of physics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-27T16:06:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.