不可分割性、地域性和现实标准:对韦格尔和麦奎恩的答复

IF 1.4 2区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2024-06-18 DOI:10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.03.004
Paolo Faglia
{"title":"不可分割性、地域性和现实标准:对韦格尔和麦奎恩的答复","authors":"Paolo Faglia","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.03.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Using a ‘reformulation of Bell’s theorem’, Waegell and McQueen, (2020) argue that any local theory which does not involve retro-causation or fine-tuning must be a many-worlds theory. Moreover they argue that non-separable many-worlds theories whose ontology is given by the wavefunction involve superluminal causation, as opposed to separable many-worlds theories (e.g. Waegell, 2021; Deutsch and Hayden 2000).</p><p>I put forward three claims. (A) I challenge their argument for relying on a non-trivial, unquestioned assumption about elements of reality which allows Healey’s approach (Healey, 2017b) to evade their claim. In an attempt to respond to (A), Waegell and McQueen may restrict their claim to theories which satisfy such an assumption, however, I also argue that (B) their argument fails to prove even the so weakened claim, as exemplified by theories that are both non-separable and local. Finally, (C) by arguing for the locality of the decoherence-based Everettian approach (Wallace, 2012) I refute Waegell and McQueen’s claim that wavefunction-based ontologies, and more generally non-separable ontologies, involve superluminal causation. I close with some doubtful remarks about separable Everettian interpretations as compared to non-separable ones.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49467,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"106 ","pages":"Pages 43-53"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368124000529/pdfft?md5=c2384dec1a5c1fbd0110505c446ec629&pid=1-s2.0-S0039368124000529-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Non-separability, locality and criteria of reality: a reply to Waegell and McQueen\",\"authors\":\"Paolo Faglia\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.03.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Using a ‘reformulation of Bell’s theorem’, Waegell and McQueen, (2020) argue that any local theory which does not involve retro-causation or fine-tuning must be a many-worlds theory. Moreover they argue that non-separable many-worlds theories whose ontology is given by the wavefunction involve superluminal causation, as opposed to separable many-worlds theories (e.g. Waegell, 2021; Deutsch and Hayden 2000).</p><p>I put forward three claims. (A) I challenge their argument for relying on a non-trivial, unquestioned assumption about elements of reality which allows Healey’s approach (Healey, 2017b) to evade their claim. In an attempt to respond to (A), Waegell and McQueen may restrict their claim to theories which satisfy such an assumption, however, I also argue that (B) their argument fails to prove even the so weakened claim, as exemplified by theories that are both non-separable and local. Finally, (C) by arguing for the locality of the decoherence-based Everettian approach (Wallace, 2012) I refute Waegell and McQueen’s claim that wavefunction-based ontologies, and more generally non-separable ontologies, involve superluminal causation. I close with some doubtful remarks about separable Everettian interpretations as compared to non-separable ones.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science\",\"volume\":\"106 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 43-53\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368124000529/pdfft?md5=c2384dec1a5c1fbd0110505c446ec629&pid=1-s2.0-S0039368124000529-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368124000529\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368124000529","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Waegell和McQueen(2020)利用 "贝尔定理的重述",认为任何不涉及逆因果关系或微调的局部理论都必须是多世界理论。此外,他们还认为,与可分离的多世界理论相比,本体由波函数给出的不可分离的多世界理论涉及超光速因果关系(例如,Waegell,2021;Deutsch 和 Hayden,2000)。(A) 我质疑他们的论点依赖于一个关于现实要素的非微不足道、不容置疑的假设,这使得希利的方法(Healey, 2017b)可以回避他们的主张。为了回应(A),Waegell 和 McQueen 可能会将他们的主张限制在满足这种假设的理论上,然而,我也认为(B)他们的论证甚至连如此弱化的主张都无法证明,例如,既不可分离又局部的理论。最后,(C)通过论证基于退相干的埃弗雷特方法(Wallace, 2012)的局部性,我反驳了韦格尔和麦奎恩的说法,即基于波函数的本体论,以及更普遍的非可分本体论,涉及超光速因果关系。最后,我对可分离的埃弗雷特解释与不可分离的埃弗雷特解释的比较提出了一些疑问。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Non-separability, locality and criteria of reality: a reply to Waegell and McQueen

Using a ‘reformulation of Bell’s theorem’, Waegell and McQueen, (2020) argue that any local theory which does not involve retro-causation or fine-tuning must be a many-worlds theory. Moreover they argue that non-separable many-worlds theories whose ontology is given by the wavefunction involve superluminal causation, as opposed to separable many-worlds theories (e.g. Waegell, 2021; Deutsch and Hayden 2000).

I put forward three claims. (A) I challenge their argument for relying on a non-trivial, unquestioned assumption about elements of reality which allows Healey’s approach (Healey, 2017b) to evade their claim. In an attempt to respond to (A), Waegell and McQueen may restrict their claim to theories which satisfy such an assumption, however, I also argue that (B) their argument fails to prove even the so weakened claim, as exemplified by theories that are both non-separable and local. Finally, (C) by arguing for the locality of the decoherence-based Everettian approach (Wallace, 2012) I refute Waegell and McQueen’s claim that wavefunction-based ontologies, and more generally non-separable ontologies, involve superluminal causation. I close with some doubtful remarks about separable Everettian interpretations as compared to non-separable ones.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
166
审稿时长
6.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science is devoted to the integrated study of the history, philosophy and sociology of the sciences. The editors encourage contributions both in the long-established areas of the history of the sciences and the philosophy of the sciences and in the topical areas of historiography of the sciences, the sciences in relation to gender, culture and society and the sciences in relation to arts. The Journal is international in scope and content and publishes papers from a wide range of countries and cultural traditions.
期刊最新文献
“Population” in biology and statistics Not wasted on the young: Childhood, trait complexes & human behavioral ecology Resisting Newton in provincial France, 1750s–1770s: Opposition from the margins to the Parisian academic community Temperature changes: The conceptual realignment of a quantity term Through the convex Looking Glass: A Helmholtzian lesson for the connection between dynamics and chronogeometry in spacetime theories
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1