Skip Navigation

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2004 55(2):219-255; doi:10.1093/bjps/55.2.219
© 2004 by British Society for the Philosophy of Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Suárez, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Quantum Selections, Propensities and the Problem of Measurement

Mauricio Suárez

Departamento de Lógica y Filosofía de la Ciencia, Facultad de Filosofía B, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain, msuarez{at}filos.ucm.es

This paper expands on, and provides a qualified defence of, Arthur Fine's selective interactions solution to the measurement problem. Fine's approach must be understood against the background of the insolubility proof of the quantum measurement. I first defend the proof as an appropriate formal representation of the quantum measurement problem. The nature of selective interactions, and more generally selections, is then clarified, and three arguments in their favour are offered. First, selections provide the only known solution to the measurement problem that does not relinquish any of the explicit premises of the insolubility proofs. Second, unlike some no-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics, selections suffer no difficulties with non-ideal measurements. Third, unlike most collapse interpretations, selections can be independently motivated by an appeal to quantum propensities.

  1. Introduction
  2. The problem of quantum measurement
    2.1 The ignorance interpretation of mixtures
    2.2 The eigenstate–eigenvalue link
    2.3 The quantum theory of measurement

  3. The insolubility proof of the quantum measurement
    3.1 Some notation
    3.2 The transfer of probability condition (TPC)
    3.3 The occurrence of outcomes condition (OOC)

  4. A defence of the insolubility proof
    4.1 Stein's critique
    4.2 Ignorance is not required
    4.3 The problem of quantum measurement is an idealisation

  5. Selections
    5.1 Representing dispositional properties
    5.2 Selections solve the measurement problem
    5.3 Selections and ignorance

  6. Non-ideal selections
    6.1 No-collapse interpretations and non-ideal measurements
    6.2 Exact and approximate measurements
    6.3 Selections for non-ideal interactions
    6.4 Approximate selections
    6.5 Implications for ignorance

  7. Selective interactions test quantum propensities
    7.1 Equivalence classes as physical ‘aspects’: a critique
    7.2 Quantum dispositions
    7.3 Selections as a propensity modal interpretation
    7.4 A comparison with Popper's propensity interpretation


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.