Does physics describe anything that can meaningfully be called “independent reality,” or is it merely operational? Most physicists implicitly favor an intermediate standpoint, which takes quantum physics into account, but which nevertheless strongly holds fast to quite strictly realistic ideas about apparently “obvious facts” concerning the macro-objects. Part 1 of this article, which is a survey of recent measurement theories, shows that, when made explicit, the standpoint in question cannot be upheld. Part 2 brings forward a proposal for making minimal (...) changes to this standpoint in such a way as to remove such objections. The “empirical reality” thus constructed is a notion that, to some extent,does ultimately refer to the human means of apprehension and of data processing. It nevertheless cannot be said that it reduces to a mere name just labelling a “set of recipes that never fail.” It is shown that our usual notion of macroscopic causality must be endowed with similar features. (shrink)

With regard to the notion of cause—or more generally of influence—the various methods of proof of Bell's theorem do not all have the same bearing. The differences between two of these methods are analyzed, with regard to both their conceptual basis and their conclusions. It is shown that both methods give valuable information but, not too surprisingly, the one that is based on the more detailed and specific definition of the concept of influences, and that makes use of the concept (...) of attribute, leads to conclusions that are also to some extent more specific than those following from the other method. (shrink)

The idea is discussed according to which, in the Heisenberg picture, the operators correspond to the dynamic properties while the density matrix corresponds to our knowledge. A simple, soluble model is made use of in order to determine in what way this idea needs to be refined and what it then tells us about the relationship of reality and physics.

Philosophie et sciences: voila un theme difficile, central, de notre temps, ou il est necessairement question de son sens. C'est ce sens qu'interrogent, d'une facon a la fois historique et problematique, les essais du present volume. J. Merleau-Ponty questionne les rapports entre sciences et vulgarisation scientifique. J. Ladriere pose le probleme de La normativite de la pensee scientifique. J. Lambert met en evidence le probleme du Livre de la Nature chez Galilee et Kepler. P. Kerszberg confronte les structures internes de (...) la philosophie critique kantienne et de la theorie de la relativite sur la question cosmologique. M. Richir analyse L'illusion transcendantale dans la theorie cantorienne des ensembles. B. d'Espagnat et G. Hottois evoquent le problemes des rapports difficiles, aujourd'hui, entre science et philosophie. (shrink)

Should we doubt the exactness of the predictive quantum rules of calculation? Although this question is sometimes raised in connection with the one on how to physically understand quantum mechanics, these two questions should not be mixed up. It is recalled here that even the first one is stil an object of controversy, and it is shown (a) that in one specific case the arguments put forward in support of such doubts are hardly cogent but (b) that, nevertheless, at least (...) in one specific other context, the question is worth attention. This is the problem of repeated imperfect measurements. Relative to it, a theoretical possibility is shown of discriminating between the thesis that the quantum rules are exact and a powerful theory of which it is proved that it cannot be reconciled with the assumption. (shrink)

This article is a response to various assertions made by B. d'Espagnat about the consistent history approach to quantum mechanics. It is argued that the consistent history interpretation allows for counterfactual definitions, does not imply that the future influences the past, is “realistic” according to d'Espagnat's own definition of that term, and provides a consistent substitute for classical logic in the quantum domain.

By questioning the validity of some of our basic concepts, such as space, object, and causality, quantum physics contributes quite decisively to the dramatic changes now taking place in our world picture. Veiled Reality provides a detailed view of the reasons why such a questioning arises, a survey of the corresponding conceptual and theoretical problems, and a comprehensive, up-to-date account, useful to scientists and epistemologists alike, of the various ways present-day physicists tackle these problems.The book deals with the E.P.R. reality (...) criterion, local causality, and quantum measurement including relativistic quantum collapse, decoherence theories, consistent histories approaches, and ontologically interpretable theories. Questions bearing on the connection between counterfactuality and realism, intersubjective agreement, and limits of the bearing of the verbs “to have” and “to be,” follow naturally from the analysis and are thoroughly examined. Finally, distinguishing between empirical reality and a veiled independent reality whose only knowable features are structural yields a clue to a plausible interpretation of current physics.Accessible to readers with only very elementary background in modern physics, Veiled Reality offers nonspecialists, including students in physics and philosophy, easy access to basic problems in the foundation of physics. (shrink)

Among the great ironies of quantum mechanics is not only that its conceptual foundations seem strange even to the physicists who use it, but that philosophers have largely ignored it. Here, Bernard d'Espagnat argues that quantum physics--by casting doubts on once hallowed concepts such as space, material objects, and causality-demands serious reconsideration of most of traditional philosophy. On Physics and Philosophy is an accessible, mathematics-free reflection on the philosophical meaning of the quantum revolution, by one of the world's leading (...) authorities on the subject. D'Espagnat presents an objective account of the main guiding principles of contemporary physics-in particular, quantum mechanics-followed by a look at just what consequences these should imply for philosophical thinking. The author begins by describing recent discoveries in quantum physics such as nonseparability, and explicating the significance of contemporary developments such as decoherence. Then he proceeds to set various philosophical theories of knowledge--such as materialism, realism, Kantism, and neo-Kantism--against the conceptual problems quantum theory raises. His overall conclusion is that while the physical implications of quantum theory suggest that scientific knowledge will never truly describe mind-independent reality, the notion of such an ultimate reality--one we can never access directly or rationally and which he calls "veiled reality"--remains conceptually necessary nonetheless. (shrink)

“To be” or “to be found”? Some contributions relative to this modern variant of Hamlet's question are presented here. They aim at better apprehending the differences between the points of view of the physicists who consider that present-day quantum measurement theories do reach their objective and those who deny they do. It is pointed out that these two groups have different interpretations of the verbs “to be” and “to have” and of the criterion for truth. These differences are made explicit. (...) A notion of “empirical reality” is constructed within the representation of which the physicists of the first named group can consistently uphold their claim. A detailed way of sharpening this definition so as to make empirical reality free of nonlocal actions at a distance is also described. (shrink)

Contrary to classical physics, which was strongly objective i.e. could be interpreted as a description of mind-independent reality, standard quantum mechanics (SQM) is only weakly objective, that is to say, its statements, though intersubjectively valid, still merely refer to operations of the mind. Essentially, in fact, they are predictive of observations. On the view that SQM is universal conventional realism is thereby refuted. It is shown however that this does not rule out a broader form of realism, called here ‘open (...) realism’, restoring the notion of mind-independent reality. (shrink)

In this largely nontechnical book, eminent physicists and philosophers address the philosophical impact of recent advances in quantum physics. These are shown to shed new light on profound questions about realism, determinism, causality or locality. The participants contribute in the spirit of an open and honest discussion, reminiscent of the time when science and philosophy were inseparable. After the editors' introduction, the next chapter reveals the strangeness of quantum mechanics and the subsequent discussions examine our notion of reality. The spotlight (...) is then turned to the topic of decoherence. Bohm's theory is critically examined in two chapters, and the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics is likewise described and discussed. The penultimate chapter presents a proposal for resolving the measurement problem, and finally the topic of loop quantum gravity is presented by one of its founding fathers, Carlo Rovelli. The original presentations and discussions on which this volume is based took place under the auspices of the French "Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques". The book will appeal to everybody interested in knowing how our description of the world is impacted by the results of the most powerful and successful theory that physicists have ever built. (shrink)

It is generally agreed that decoherence theory is, if not a complete answer, at least a great step forward towards a solution of the quantum measurement problem. It is shown here however that in the cases in which a sentient being is explicitly assumed to take cognizance of the outcome the reasons we have for judging this way are not totally consistent, so that the question has to be considered anew. It is pointed out that the way the Broglie–Bohm model (...) solves the riddle suggests a possible clue, consisting in assuming that even very simple systems may have some sort of a proto-consciousness, but that their “internal states of consciousness” are not predictive. It is, next, easily shown that if we imagine the systems get larger, in virtue of decoherence their internal states of consciousness progressively gain in predictive value. So that, for macro-systems, they may be identified (in practice) with the predictive states of consciousness on which we ground our observational predictions. The possibilities of carrying over this idea to standard quantum mechanics are then investigated. Conditions of conceptual consistency are considered and found rather strict, and, finally, two solutions emerge, differing conceptually very much from one another but in both of which the, possibly non-predictive, generalized internal states of consciousness play a crucial role. (shrink)

It is stressed that any theory of which it is claimed that it is compatible both with standard realism and with the experimental data is subject to severe constraints. One is that it must either incorporate superluminal influences or negate the free will of the experimentalist. The other one is that, in it. it is only at the price of accepting “backward causality” that a measurement can he interpreted as revealing the value the measured quantity had, just before, rather than (...) just after, the measurement look place. (shrink)

ResumeLes avancées que la physique a effectuées au cours de notre siècle rendent intertables beaucoup des vues de la philosophie réaliste traditionnelle. Mais ce n'est pas à dire que la position réaliste, conçue au sens large, doive, ou même puisse, être abandonée. Le texte vise à montrer qu'il n'en est rien. Plus précisément il cherche àétablir que l'idée ? une réalité dont l'existence ne relève pas de l'esprit humain demeure une idée nécessaire, qu'il est même légitime de concevoir une telle (...) réalité comme entrevue gräce aux activités noétiques de l'homme, mais que cependant il semble aujourd'hui hautement présomptueux de concevoir les choses observées comme des éléments de la ≫réalité≫ dont il s'agit. Les phénomènes, qui sont l'objet de la physique, constituent cependant eux‐mêmes une réalité en un autre sens, puisqu'ils forment un ensemble doué? une forte structuration et ? une relative mais large autonomic par rapport à nous. La distinction proposée entre ≫réalité indépendante≪ ‐ dont ľ'existence ne reléve pas de l'homme ‐ et ≫réalité empirique≪ ‐ ou ensemble des phénoménes ‐ paraît done maintenant être une bonne clé pour l'intelligence du donné.SummaryThe advances of physics in this century have made a number of views of traditional realist philosophy untenable. But this is not to say that the ‘realist position, in the broad sense', must or even can be abandoned ‐ as it is the aim of this work to show. More specifically, the aim is to establish that the idea of ‘reality, the existence of which does not depend of the human mind', remains necessary, that one may even consider that the noetic activities of men let them catch a glimpse of the reality in question, but that today, however, it seems highly presumptuous to consider observed things as elements of the “reality” that we are concerned with here. Phenomena, which are the subject of physics, do however constitute a reality in another sense, since they form a whole endowed with structure and with a relative but extensive autonomy in relation to us. The proposed distinction between “independent reality” ‐ the existence of which does not depend on man ‐ and “empirical reality” ‐ or all phenomena taken together ‐ would therefore appear to be a good key to the understanding of raw data. (shrink)

Our hospital routine requires that all new admissions must be asked about their code status. It is not uncommon for an otherwise healthy patient to request that a do-not-resuscitate order be placed in their chart. Presumably, these patients who wish to have a DNR order are acting on the belief that should an unforeseen, irreversible condition occur that leads to a cardiac arrest, they would not want to undergo resuscitation. Tragically, we have witnessed several instances in which potentially life-saving interventions (...) were withheld in viable patients in non-arrest settings for reversible conditions because the patients had a DNR order in the chart. Unfortunately, this happens when the treating physicians are not aware of the limited scope of a DNR order and instead use the order as a blanket prohibition against all components of resuscitation. This communication failure is due to misconceptions that patients and their physicians have with regard to such orders. The medical community is well overdue to improve the end-of-life decisions offered to patients beyond relying on the outdated term DNR.LIMITATIONS OF DNR ORDERSDespite the major advances in critical care medicine in the past few decades, doctors have not substantially improved their ability to address end-of-life decisions any better than by using the all-encompassing term DNR. Currently, the term is generally accepted as an order to prohibit the use of interventions to reverse a cardiac or pulmonary arrest.1 2 What is frequently forgotten with the DNR order is that …. (shrink)

Arguing from a sort of reasonable Protestant ethic, Henry offers a worthwhile and sometimes quite practical analysis of a Christian social ideal. In Henry's approach, no "prattling about love" can take the place of justice when the latter is what is needed.—D. J. B.

This work provides an interesting, though sometimes rather sweeping, demonstration that the metaphysical problem of the same and the other is also the central problem of literature and literary criticism. The author defends the analogical imagination as the symbolic counterpart of participation in Platonic metaphysics.--D. C. B.