{"title":"作为卡尔纳普语言的量子力学","authors":"Iulian D. Toader","doi":"arxiv-2407.07102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper discusses Carnap's claim that a proper philosophical analysis of\nquantum mechanics, including a determination of whether its logic has to be\nrevised, requires a rational reconstruction of the theory. Several\narticulations of the notion of rational reconstruction are recalled, followed\nby a brief analysis of two standard criticisms of Carnap's claim. The paper\nsuggests that adopting inferentialism overcomes both criticisms, and then\nconsiders the possibility of formulating quantum mechanics as a Carnapian\nlanguage with an inferentialist semantics.","PeriodicalId":501042,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - PHYS - History and Philosophy of Physics","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantum Mechanics as a Carnapian Language\",\"authors\":\"Iulian D. Toader\",\"doi\":\"arxiv-2407.07102\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The paper discusses Carnap's claim that a proper philosophical analysis of\\nquantum mechanics, including a determination of whether its logic has to be\\nrevised, requires a rational reconstruction of the theory. Several\\narticulations of the notion of rational reconstruction are recalled, followed\\nby a brief analysis of two standard criticisms of Carnap's claim. The paper\\nsuggests that adopting inferentialism overcomes both criticisms, and then\\nconsiders the possibility of formulating quantum mechanics as a Carnapian\\nlanguage with an inferentialist semantics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501042,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"arXiv - PHYS - History and Philosophy of Physics\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"arXiv - PHYS - History and Philosophy of Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/arxiv-2407.07102\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - PHYS - History and Philosophy of Physics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2407.07102","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper discusses Carnap's claim that a proper philosophical analysis of
quantum mechanics, including a determination of whether its logic has to be
revised, requires a rational reconstruction of the theory. Several
articulations of the notion of rational reconstruction are recalled, followed
by a brief analysis of two standard criticisms of Carnap's claim. The paper
suggests that adopting inferentialism overcomes both criticisms, and then
considers the possibility of formulating quantum mechanics as a Carnapian
language with an inferentialist semantics.