The meaning and status of contextuality and relationality in quantum mechanics
Mauro Dorato, Department of Philosophy, Communication and Media Studies,Â UniversitÃ degli studi Roma Tre
Via Ostiense 234, 00146, Rome, Italy
In my paper I will evaluate two recent relationalist approaches to quantum mechanics, proposed in particular by Rovelli (1995, 1997, 2012) and Healey (2012a, 2012b, 2015, 2016, 2017a, 2017b, 2018). I will argue that both approaches are very close to a traditional interpretation to the theory (namely Bohrâ€™s) in which very general empirical regularities revealed by measurements are used as building blocks of a â€œtheory-of-principle-approachâ€ to quantum mechanics in Einsteinâ€™s sense (1919). In this respect, both views are also close to Pitowsky and Bubâ€™s â€œstructuralâ€ understanding of quantum mechanics, regarded as a new theory of contextual probability (Pitowsky 2006) or as a new theory of information (Bub 2015).
On the one hand, by stressing a pragmatistic view of the theory and the physical situatedness of agents, Healey revives both (i) Bohrâ€™s stress on the pragmatic role of language in understanding physical theories and (ii) his peculiar form of contextualism. In fact, it has been now historically documented that the influence of Jamesâ€™ thought of Bohr was very relevant (Folse 2018). Healeyâ€™s physical situatedness of agents is a basic consequence of the contextuality of the theory, proved formally by Kochen and Specker and established experimentally by the fact that quantum observations do not reveal previously possessed values of physical systems, a fact that Bohr never tired of stressing. On the other hand, Rovelliâ€™s relational quantum mechanics (1996, 1997, 2011, 2018) is a mixture of Bohrâ€™s and Everettâ€™s interpretations. Like Bohr, it stresses an antirealistic understanding of the wave function. Like Everettâ€™s relative state formulation, it insists on the perspectival nature of the quantum state of the universe.
Accordingly, both relationist interpretations of quantum theory are attempts to improve on Bohrâ€™s too often misunderstood approach to quantum theory
Bub J. (2017), Quantum mechanics for primates,
Einstein A. (1919), Time space and Gravitation, Times, London 28 November 13-14
Healey R. (2012b): â€œ Quantum decoherence in a pragmatist viewâ€; 42, 1534-1555
Healey R. (2015): â€œHow quantum theory help us explainâ€, Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 66 (2015), 1â€“43.
Healey R. (2016), “Quantum-Bayesian and Pragmatist Views of Quantum Theory”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), Edward N. ZaltaÂ (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/quantum-bayesian/>.
Healey R. (2017a) The Quantum Revolution in Philosophy, OUP.
Healey R. (2017b) â€œQuantum States as Objective Informational Bridgesâ€ Found Phys, 47:161â€“173.
Healey R. (2018) â€œPragmatist quantum realismâ€, forthcoming in Brit. J. Phil. Sci.
Laudisa, F. and Rovelli, C. (2008), “Relational Quantum Mechanics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/qm-relational/>
Rovelli C., (1996), â€œRelational Quantum Mechanicsâ€, Int. J. Th. Phys., 35 1637.
Pitowsky I. (2006), â€œQuantum Mechanics as a Theory of Probabilityâ€, in William Demopoulos and Itamar Pitowsky (eds.) Physical Theory and Its Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey Bub, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 213â€“240. doi:10.1007/1-4020-4876-9_10.
Rovelli, C., and Smerlak, M., (2007), “Relational EPR”, Foundations of Physics, 37: 427-44