Sunday, February 26, 2012

Which quantum mechanics?

In this blog post Bryant says:

"Quantum mechanics significantly call for revisions of our concept of substance at the level of questions of individuation. Traditionally substances are thought as individuated by their location in time and space, yet phenomena such as non-locality present significant challenges to such a concept of individuals. Quantum mechanics calls for us to revise our understanding of substance in terms of findings such as wave-particle duality, non-locality, and subatomic particles that seem capable of continuously popping in and out of existence like Schroedinger’s notorious cat."

But which or whose QM is more consistent with his OOO orientation?

As to the issue of nonlocality and superluminality I was re-reading some earlier comments in an IPS thread on the topic beginning here. Then I came upon this article by Prigogine et al. While they accept quantum superposition and nonlocality “in this paper we present illustrations of Hegerfeldt's theorem without any appeal to superluminality.” This paper also addresses the topic, where Prigogine and company say “no superluminal speeds are involved.”

While OOO (and any other philosophy) has to address QM perhaps they do not have to accept some of the more spooky interpretations thereof, some of which seem to have a commitment that consciousness is ontologically primary. Or that said consciousness gives us direct access to the totality of the universe, etc. (recall this post). It seems this is where QM needs something like OOO to ground it, and philosophical system dynamicists like Prigogine and Varela.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.