Abstract
In the discourse of quantum mechanics it is usual to say that non-commuting observables cannot have definite values at the same time, or that they cannot be simultaneously measured. But, what does the term ‘cannot’ mean in this context? Does it stand for impossible? Should Heisenberg’s principle be read in terms of uncertainty or of indeterminacy? On the other hand, whereas the debates about the nature of time in classical and relativistic mechanics have been many and varied, the question about the nature of time in quantum mechanics has not received the same attention, especially when compared to the large amount of literature on interpretive issues. The purpose of this paper is to show that, under a realist interpretation of quantum mechanics, these two matters, possibility and time, are strongly related. The final aim is to argue that, when possibility and actuality are conceived as irreducible modes of being, they are correlated to two different notions of time that can be distinguished in the quantum realm: parameter-time and event-time.
Highlights
In the discourse of quantum mechanics it is usual to say that non-commuting observables cannot have definite values at the same time, or that they cannot be simultaneously measured
Perhaps the fact that the symmetry group of quantum mechanics is the same as that of classical mechanics led many to think that any question about time in non-relativistic quantum mechanics is automatically settled by the same discussion in pre-relativistic classical mechanics
The final aim is to argue that, when possibility and actuality are conceived as irreducible modes of being, they are correlated to two different notions of time that can be distinguished in the quantum realm
Summary
In the discourse of quantum mechanics it is usual to say that non-commuting observables cannot have definite values at the same time, or that they cannot be simultaneously measured. Its rejection of metaphysics in favor of logic led most philosophers of Entropy 2022, 24, 249 science belonging to the analytic tradition to avoid ontological discussions by translating them into linguistic and logical questions It is not surprising, that this general position showed a deep skepticism towards any appeal to objective modality, manifested by the de re use of modal concepts. An example of the rejection of metaphysics in favor of logic is the case of Richard Montague [7], who attempts to elucidate the concept of physical necessity in logical terms According to this author, p is physically necessary iff p is deducible from a certain class of physical laws L. When this task focuses on modality, the need of recovering an objective meaning of modality comes to the fore
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
