Scan barcode
A review by socraticgadfly
Quantum Reality: The Quest for the Real Meaning of Quantum Mechanics - A Game of Theories by Jim Baggott
4.0
This is pretty good overall. Not a lot of complex equations, and where math does pop up, it’s usually accompanied by illustrations.
Baggott starts with good framing of where QM interpretations are “working at,” between a Scylla bordering lands of pure metaphysics and a Charybdis adjacent to lands of pure empiricism. From there, before diving in, he notes that good physics in particular and science in general is influenced by metaphysical stances, even if particular scientists aren’t cognizant of taking metaphysical stances. At the same time, he notes good philosophy, especially on issues like consciousness and theories of knowledge, is informed by good science.
OK, the details. Not to spoil anything, but he gives fair shrift to all the main current “realist” and “antirealist” interpretations.
And, I'm probably where he is. I'd like to be a realist, but, I don't believe there's any physical wavefunction physically collapsing or most other realist claims. Per his metaphor of the Scylla of metaphysical lands and the Charybdis of empirical ones, "relational" anti-realist theories (types of quantum gravity) seem a better road to pursue than strings. I do think, like Baggott appears to think, per Einstein, that the measurement problem, per Heisenberg’s uncertainty theorem is a real one, not just metaphorical, and that there is a fundamental “graininess” to the universe, along the lines of Einstein’s “god doesn’t play dice.” Also like Einstein, and contra Schrödinger and his cat (which I know was intended as a reductio, but was also based on him smoking too much Hinduism https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-schroedinger-was-wrong-about-his.html) I think the wavefunction is just statistical mechanics. On the other hand, and like him, I don’t like that relational theories still have different observers seeing different results. Objective collapse theories, and there are more of them than the Diosi-Penrose that Baggott presents, still have allure, too, but also have problems.
More of Baggott’s thoughts here, per Massimo Pigliucci. https://medium.com/science-and-philosophy/the-copenhagen-confusion-611f31cc27e1
That said? One "fail." In chapter 3, after talking about the Scylla and Charybdis of metaphysics and empiricism, and then inductive and deductive reasoning, he talks about what's clearly abduction. In fact, the example he has, of Adams/Leverrier and the idea of searching for Neptune (before Baggott then pivots to Leverrier postulating Vulcan when relativity later had the answer) is the first real-world scientific example of abduction used at Stanford's entry on the subject. Yet, he never uses the word "abduction" (index says never in the book) and references C.S. Pearce only once and that in a footnote.
The book is overall pretty good, but .. that's like a lacuna!
Baggott starts with good framing of where QM interpretations are “working at,” between a Scylla bordering lands of pure metaphysics and a Charybdis adjacent to lands of pure empiricism. From there, before diving in, he notes that good physics in particular and science in general is influenced by metaphysical stances, even if particular scientists aren’t cognizant of taking metaphysical stances. At the same time, he notes good philosophy, especially on issues like consciousness and theories of knowledge, is informed by good science.
OK, the details. Not to spoil anything, but he gives fair shrift to all the main current “realist” and “antirealist” interpretations.
And, I'm probably where he is. I'd like to be a realist, but, I don't believe there's any physical wavefunction physically collapsing or most other realist claims. Per his metaphor of the Scylla of metaphysical lands and the Charybdis of empirical ones, "relational" anti-realist theories (types of quantum gravity) seem a better road to pursue than strings. I do think, like Baggott appears to think, per Einstein, that the measurement problem, per Heisenberg’s uncertainty theorem is a real one, not just metaphorical, and that there is a fundamental “graininess” to the universe, along the lines of Einstein’s “god doesn’t play dice.” Also like Einstein, and contra Schrödinger and his cat (which I know was intended as a reductio, but was also based on him smoking too much Hinduism https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-schroedinger-was-wrong-about-his.html) I think the wavefunction is just statistical mechanics. On the other hand, and like him, I don’t like that relational theories still have different observers seeing different results. Objective collapse theories, and there are more of them than the Diosi-Penrose that Baggott presents, still have allure, too, but also have problems.
More of Baggott’s thoughts here, per Massimo Pigliucci. https://medium.com/science-and-philosophy/the-copenhagen-confusion-611f31cc27e1
That said? One "fail." In chapter 3, after talking about the Scylla and Charybdis of metaphysics and empiricism, and then inductive and deductive reasoning, he talks about what's clearly abduction. In fact, the example he has, of Adams/Leverrier and the idea of searching for Neptune (before Baggott then pivots to Leverrier postulating Vulcan when relativity later had the answer) is the first real-world scientific example of abduction used at Stanford's entry on the subject. Yet, he never uses the word "abduction" (index says never in the book) and references C.S. Pearce only once and that in a footnote.
The book is overall pretty good, but .. that's like a lacuna!