论文标题
关于$ψ$ - on和$ψ$的分类
On the Classification between $ψ$-Ontic and $ψ$-Epistemic Ontological Models
论文作者
论文摘要
Harrigan and Spekkens(2010)提供了量子本体论模型的分类,如果量子状态分别描述了物理现实或单纯的观察者的知识,则将其分类为$ψ$ - 单位或$ψ$ - pepistlectic。此外,他们声称爱因斯坦(Einstein)是量子力学的统计解释的支持者,他认可了$ψ$的认知观点。在本文中,我们通过提出两倍的论点来批判性地评估这种分类及其某些后果。首先,我们表明Harrigan和Spekkens的分类隐含地假设对量子系统的完整描述(其Ontic状态,$λ$)仅涉及单个系统实例化绝对,内在属性的单个系统。其次,我们认为这种假设与量子力学的某些当前解释相抵触,量子力学的某些解释是对量子系统的完整描述。特别是,我们将表明,由于在统计解释中描述了集合而不是个人,因此这种观点不能被视为PSI-PEPESTEMATIC。结果,作者误解了爱因斯坦关于量子状态性质的观点。接下来,我们将重点关注关系主义量子力学和透视量子力学,这些量子力学依靠其关系和透视形而上学采用了与关系性质的lambda。我们得出的结论是,Harrigan和Spekkens的分类太狭窄了,因此对提到的量子理论解释的分类不足。因此,量子本体学模型的任何令人满意的分类都应考虑到量子力学的不同解释中$λ$的变化。
Harrigan and Spekkens (2010) provided a categorization of quantum ontological models classifying them as $ψ$-ontic or $ψ$-epistemic if the quantum state describes respectively either a physical reality or mere observers' knowledge. Moreover, they claimed that Einstein - who was a supporter of the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics - endorsed an epistemic view of $ψ$. In this essay we critically assess such a classification and some of its consequences by proposing a two-fold argumentation. Firstly, we show that Harrigan and Spekkens' categorization implicitly assumes that a complete description of a quantum system (its ontic state, $λ$) only concerns single, individual systems instantiating absolute, intrinsic properties. Secondly, we argue that such assumptions conflict with some current interpretations of quantum mechanics, which employ different ontic states as a complete description of quantum systems. In particular, we will show that, since in the statistical interpretation ontic states describe ensembles rather than individuals, such a view cannot be considered psi-epistemic. As a consequence, the authors misinterpreted Einstein's view concerning the nature of the quantum state. Next, we will focus on Relationalist Quantum Mechanics and Perspectival Quantum Mechanics, which in virtue of their relational and perspectival metaphysics employ ontic states lambda dealing with relational properties. We conclude that Harrigan and Spekkens' categorization is too narrow and entails an inadequate classification of the mentioned interpretations of quantum theory. Hence, any satisfactory classification of quantum ontological models ought to take into account the variations of $λ$ across different interpretations of quantum mechanics.