{"title":"贝尔可待概念的演变:从玻尔到原始本体论","authors":"Federico Laudisa","doi":"10.1007/s10838-024-09675-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>John S. Bell introduced the notion of <i>beable</i>, as opposed to the standard notion of <i>observable</i>, in order to emphasize the need for an unambiguous formulation of quantum mechanics. In the paper I show that Bell formulated in fact <i>two</i> different theories of beables. The first is somehow reminiscent of the Bohr views on quantum mechanics but, at the same time, is curiously adopted by Bell as a critical tool <i>against</i> the Copenhagen interpretation, whereas the second, more mature formulation was among the sources of inspiration of the so-called <i>Primitive Ontology</i> (PO) approach to quantum mechanics, an approach inspired to scientific realism. In the first part of the paper it is argued that, contrary to the Bell wishes, the first formulation of the theory fails to be an effective recipe for addressing the ambiguity underlying the standard formulation of quantum mechanics, whereas it is only the second formulation that successfully paves the way to the PO approach. In the second part, I consider how the distinction between the two formulations of the Bell theory of beables fares <i>vis-a-vis</i> the complex relationship between the theory of beables and the details of the PO approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":44953,"journal":{"name":"Journal for General Philosophy of Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Evolution of the Bell Notion of Beable: From Bohr to Primitive Ontology\",\"authors\":\"Federico Laudisa\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10838-024-09675-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>John S. Bell introduced the notion of <i>beable</i>, as opposed to the standard notion of <i>observable</i>, in order to emphasize the need for an unambiguous formulation of quantum mechanics. In the paper I show that Bell formulated in fact <i>two</i> different theories of beables. The first is somehow reminiscent of the Bohr views on quantum mechanics but, at the same time, is curiously adopted by Bell as a critical tool <i>against</i> the Copenhagen interpretation, whereas the second, more mature formulation was among the sources of inspiration of the so-called <i>Primitive Ontology</i> (PO) approach to quantum mechanics, an approach inspired to scientific realism. In the first part of the paper it is argued that, contrary to the Bell wishes, the first formulation of the theory fails to be an effective recipe for addressing the ambiguity underlying the standard formulation of quantum mechanics, whereas it is only the second formulation that successfully paves the way to the PO approach. In the second part, I consider how the distinction between the two formulations of the Bell theory of beables fares <i>vis-a-vis</i> the complex relationship between the theory of beables and the details of the PO approach.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44953,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for General Philosophy of Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for General Philosophy of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-024-09675-8\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for General Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-024-09675-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
约翰-贝尔(John S. Bell)提出了 "可观测"(beable)的概念,而不是标准的 "可观测"(observable)概念,以强调量子力学需要一个明确的表述。我在论文中指出,贝尔实际上提出了两种不同的 "可观测 "理论。第一种理论在某种程度上让人联想到玻尔关于量子力学的观点,但同时又被贝尔奇怪地用作反对哥本哈根解释的批判工具,而第二种更成熟的理论则是所谓的量子力学原始本体论(PO)方法的灵感来源之一,这种方法受到科学现实主义的启发。本文第一部分认为,与贝尔的愿望相反,该理论的第一种表述无法有效解决量子力学标准表述的模糊性问题,而只有第二种表述成功地为 PO 方法铺平了道路。在第二部分中,我将探讨贝尔可待物理论的两种表述之间的区别,以及可待物理论与 PO 方法细节之间的复杂关系。
The Evolution of the Bell Notion of Beable: From Bohr to Primitive Ontology
John S. Bell introduced the notion of beable, as opposed to the standard notion of observable, in order to emphasize the need for an unambiguous formulation of quantum mechanics. In the paper I show that Bell formulated in fact two different theories of beables. The first is somehow reminiscent of the Bohr views on quantum mechanics but, at the same time, is curiously adopted by Bell as a critical tool against the Copenhagen interpretation, whereas the second, more mature formulation was among the sources of inspiration of the so-called Primitive Ontology (PO) approach to quantum mechanics, an approach inspired to scientific realism. In the first part of the paper it is argued that, contrary to the Bell wishes, the first formulation of the theory fails to be an effective recipe for addressing the ambiguity underlying the standard formulation of quantum mechanics, whereas it is only the second formulation that successfully paves the way to the PO approach. In the second part, I consider how the distinction between the two formulations of the Bell theory of beables fares vis-a-vis the complex relationship between the theory of beables and the details of the PO approach.
期刊介绍:
The Journal for General Philosophy of Science is a forum for the discussion of a variety of attitudes concerning the philosophy of science. It has as its subject matter the philosophical, especially methodological, ontological, epistemological, anthropological, and ethical foundations of the individual sciences. Particular emphasis is laid on bringing both the natural, the cultural, and the technical sciences into a philosophical context, within which the historical presuppositions and conditions of the current problems of the philosophy of science are also included in the discussion. The Journal for General Philosophy of Science has been successful in its attempt to serve as a forum that bridges the gap between the different sciences, especially the natural, cultural, and social sciences. One of its purposes is to discuss and contrast the common as well as the different specific methodological and philosophical foundations of the individual sciences, taking into account all currently relevant positions of the philosophy of science. In recent years considerable insight has been gained into the problems of current philosophy of science by considering the historical dimension of the sciences. This is why more intensive efforts will be made in the future towards the integration of historical and systematic considerations. The journal contains:articles discussions reports on the state of the philosophy of science in individual countries reviews a bibliography of the major journals in the field of the history and philosophy of science. The journal is of interest to philosophers, especially philosophers of science, as well as to scholars from the field of the natural, cultural, social and technical sciences who are interested in becoming aware of the philosophical implications of their disciplines and in being stimulated by the transfer of methods, leading ideas, concepts and theories from other fields.
As of 2015, Journal for General Philosophy of Science will accept submissions online via the Editorial Manager system. Authors are encouraged to use this format in submitting to the journal to ensure that your article is processed in a timely fashion.