{"title":"What's left for the neo-Copenhagen theorist","authors":"Michael Dascal","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsb.2019.10.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Frauchiger and Renner (2018) argue that no ‘single-world’ theory can consistently maintain quantum mechanical predictions for all systems. Following Bub (2017, 2018, 2019), I argue here that this is overstated, and use their result to develop a framework for neo-Copenhagen theories that avoid the problem. To describe the framework I introduce two concepts, <em>ontological information deficits</em>, and <em>information frames</em>, and explore how these may ultimately be fleshed out by the theorist. I then consider some immediate worries that may be raised against the framework, and conclude by looking at how some existing theories may be seen to fit into it.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54442,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics","volume":"72 ","pages":"Pages 310-321"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.shpsb.2019.10.005","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135521981830220X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
Frauchiger and Renner (2018) argue that no ‘single-world’ theory can consistently maintain quantum mechanical predictions for all systems. Following Bub (2017, 2018, 2019), I argue here that this is overstated, and use their result to develop a framework for neo-Copenhagen theories that avoid the problem. To describe the framework I introduce two concepts, ontological information deficits, and information frames, and explore how these may ultimately be fleshed out by the theorist. I then consider some immediate worries that may be raised against the framework, and conclude by looking at how some existing theories may be seen to fit into it.
期刊介绍:
Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics is devoted to all aspects of the history and philosophy of modern physics broadly understood, including physical aspects of astronomy, chemistry and other non-biological sciences. The primary focus is on physics from the mid/late-nineteenth century to the present, the period of emergence of the kind of theoretical physics that has come to dominate the exact sciences in the twentieth century. The journal is internationally oriented with contributions from a wide range of perspectives. In addition to purely historical or philosophical papers, the editors particularly encourage papers that combine these two disciplines.
The editors are also keen to publish papers of interest to physicists, as well as specialists in history and philosophy of physics.