Talk:Instrumentalist interpretation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] OR template added

The subject matter of instrumentalism in quantum mechanics is not new and is important practically and as a foundational concern. However, much of the article is speculative: Particularly, the way the intro is stated:

This article aims at proposing a non-interpretative description of some key quantum experiments, based as far as possible on genuine facts, although there is no criterion for deciding whether this goal has been fully achieved or not (should it be feasible).

WP articles should not propose anything, they should report (of course WP also encourages to break all the rules). We can achieve both aims by changing the focus of the article and rather than refer to it as a proposal call it an example. But please, the article needs references. That is one rule that should not be broken. --CSTAR 15:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If this is to remain as a separate article, then it should be renamed Factual approach to quantum theory. The article should be referenced in article Quantum mechanics, subsection philosophical consequences, and in article Copenhagen interpretation, subsection alternatives. The reference could be worded as follows:

"An alternative approach states that quantum theory becomes immediately intuitive if understood as a description of the protocol of our interface to the world, as opposed to a description of the world. Examples are given in Factual approach to quantum theory."

The introductory sentence to the new article shall then be replaced with:

"The present article provides examples of a factual, non-interpretative, description of key quantum experiments according to which the aboutness of quantum theory becomes immediately intuitive: it describes the protocol of our interface to the world, as opposed to describing the world itself."

(SUGDUB - 21 November 2005)

[edit] References

My understanding of the instrumentalist interpretation of quantum mechanics is that it is an "interpretation without interpretation"[1].

Generally speaking, an interpretation of a mathematical formalism put some links between the mathematical quantities and the quantities of the `real' world. So, interpretation have to commit itself about what makes the reality. It can assume a real independant world [2], with different views of it [3]... or many different worlds [4], etc. Each of theses use a different definition of what is the reality out there.

The instrumentalist interpretation do not commit itself about what the reality actually is. It describe links between experimental procedures, wich are valid independently of what is THE reality. As an example, the Bohm's interpretation could be falsified if we could test one of it's "realist assertion", e.g. the existence of real independent particles. On the other hand, the instrumentalist interpretation can not be falsified it this way, since it make no realist assertion at all. It only makes a list of procedures and link it with the various outcomes of every conceivable tests[5]. In a way, it say : "If you can do this or that, then you will obtain this or that".

In my opinion, Peres make the better explanations of what is the instrumentalist interpretation in the two first chapters of his book [5], but, at the end, he interpret it as describing information, which go far beyond what is actually an instrumentalist interpretation (without interpretation). M. Redhead makes an equivalent description of what he call the minimal instrumentalist interpretation in his book [6]. When you interpret the instrumentalist interpretation as a procedure to obtain information, we generaly than call it the semantic interpretation (or view) of quantum mechanics. L. Marchildon discuss why he think this is not sufficient is his very good paper [7].

Note that anyone can use this to put some ref. in the article on the instrumentalism interpretation.

[1] C. A. Fuchs and A. Peres, “Quantum theory needs no ‘interpretation’,” Phys. Today 53(3), 70–71 (2000).

[2] David Bohm, A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden" Variables. I&II, Phys. Rev. 85, 180 (1952)

[3] E J Squires 1987 Eur. J. Phys. 8 171-173

[4] De Witt, B. S. M., (1970) ‘Quantum mechanics and Reality’, Physics Today 23, No. 9, pp. 30-35.

[5] A. Peres, Quantum Theory : Concepts and Methods, Kluwer (1995), chapter 1 and 2.

[6] M. Redhead, Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism, Oxford (1987)

[7] L. Marchildon, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 34, No. 10, October 2004 (© 2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0405126v2

(slevesque - august 2007)