Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-zlvph Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-18T13:28:48.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Becoming, Relativity, and Nonseparability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Mauro Dorato
Mauro Dorato*
Affiliation:
Institute of Philosophy, University of Padua, Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a reply to Nicholas Maxwell, Stein has proved that Minkowski spacetime can leave room for the kind of indeterminateness required both by certain interpretations of quantum mechanics and by objective becoming. By examining the consequences of outcome dependence in Bell-type experiments for the co-determinateness of spacelike-related events, I argue that the only becoming relation that is compatible with both causal and noncausal readings of the quantum correlations is the universal relation. This result might also undermine interpretations of quantum mechanics requiring non-epistemically indeterminate states before measurement and hyperplane-dependent wave collapse.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 63 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 585 - 604
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

I am truly indebted to the comments of the anonymous referee concerning two earlier versions of this paper. The final version was completed at the Center for Philosophy of Science of the University of Pittsburgh. Besides the members of the Center and of the Philosophy Department, I thank D. Malament, M. Pauri, and H. Stein for helpful discussions.

‡

Send reprint requests to the author, Via Biferno 4, 00199 Rome, Italy; e-mail, Dorato@itcaspur.caspur.it

References

Albert, D. (1992), Quantum mechanics and experience. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bell, J. (1964), “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox”, Physics 1: 195–200.10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. (1987), Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Belnap, N. (1992), “Branching Spacetime”, Synthese 92: 385–434.10.1007/BF00414289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, J. (1989), “A Spacetime Approach to the Bell Inequality”, in Cushing, J. and McMullin, E. (ed.), Philosophical consequences of quantum theory. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, pp. 114–144.Google Scholar
Butterfield, J. (1992), “Bell's Theorem: What it Takes”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43: 41–83.10.1093/bjps/43.1.41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, J. (1995), “Worlds, Minds and Quanta”, typescript.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1963), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. Schilpp, P. (ed.). La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Clifton, R. and Hogarth, M. (1995), “The Definability of Objective Becoming in Minkowski Spacetime”, Synthese 103: 355–387.10.1007/BF01089733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushing, J. and McMullin, E. (ed.) (1989), Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, M. (1977), “A Relativity Principle in Quantum Mechanics”, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 16: 867–874.10.1007/BF01807619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieks, D. (1988), “Discussion: Special Relativity and the Flow of Time”, Philosophy of Science 55: 456–460.10.1086/289452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorato, M. (1995), Time and Reality. Bologna: Clueb.Google Scholar
Dorato, M. (1997), “Three Views of the Relationship between Time and Reality”, in Faye, J., Scheffler, U., and Urchs, M. (ed.), Perspectives on Time. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 189. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 61–92.10.1007/978-94-015-8875-1_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowe, P. (1992), “Wesley Salmon's Theory of Process Causality and the Conserved Quantity Theory”, Philosophy of Science 59: 195–216.10.1086/289662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A. (1948), “Quanten Mechanic und Wirklichkeit”, Dialectica 2: 320–324 (translated as “Quantum Mechanics and Reality”, in The Born-Einstein Letters, New York, Walter & Co., 1971, pp. 168–173).10.1111/j.1746-8361.1948.tb00704.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, H. III (1957), “‘Relative State’ Formulation of Quantum Mechanics”, Review of Modern Physics 29: 454–462.10.1103/RevModPhys.29.454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faye, J. (1989), The Reality of the Future. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
Faye, J. (1994), “Non-Locality or Non-Separability? A Defense of Bohr's Anti-realist Approach to Quantum Mechanics”, in Faye, J. and Folse, H. (ed.), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 97–118.10.1007/978-94-015-8106-6_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, P. (1969), “The Truth about Tomorrow's Sea-Fight”, Journal of Philosophy 66: 307–329.10.2307/2023840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, G. (1989), “Lorentz Invariant State Reduction and Localizations”, in Fine, A. and Forbes, M. (ed.), PSA 1988, Volume II. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 112–126.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, W. (1979), “Special Relativity and the Present”, Philosophical Studies 36: 233–244.10.1007/BF00372628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gödel, K. (1949), “A Remark about the Relationship between Relativity Theory and Idealistic Philosophy”, in Schilpp, P. (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. La Salle, IL: Open Court, pp. 557–562.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, A. (1971), “The Meaning of Time”, in Freeman, E. and Sellars, W. (ed.), Basic Issues in the Philosophy of Time. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, pp. 195–228.Google Scholar
Healey, R. (1984), “How Many Worlds?”, Noûs 18: 591–616.10.2307/2214879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healey, R. (1994), “Nonseparable Processes and Causal Explanation”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 25, 3: 337–374.10.1016/0039-3681(94)90057-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, D. (1985), “Einstein on Locality and Separability”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16, 3: 171–201.10.1016/0039-3681(85)90001-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, D. (1989), “Holism and Separability” in Cushing, J. and McMullin, E. (ed.), Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, pp. 224–253.Google Scholar
Jarrett, J. (1984), “On the Physical Significance of the Locality Conditions in the Bell Arguments”, Noûs 18: 569–589.10.2307/2214878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. (1976), “Events as Property Exemplification”, in Brands, M. and Walton, D. (ed.), Action Theory. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudisa, F. (1995), “Einstein, Bell, and Nonseparable Realism”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 456: 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1986), Philosophical Papers, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lockwood, M. (1989), Brain, Mind and the Quantum. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Malament, D. (1977), “Causal Theories of Time and the Conventionality of Simultaneity”, Noûs 3: 293–300.10.2307/2214766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, G. (1969), “Tense Logic! Why Bother?”, Noûs 3: 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maudlin, T. (1994), Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Maxwell, N. (1985), “Are Probabilism and Special Relativity Incompatible?”, Philosophy of Science 52: 23–43.10.1086/289220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, N. (1988), “Are Probabilism and Special Relativity Compatible?”, Philosophy of Science 55: 640–645.10.1086/289466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, N. (1993), “Discussion: On Relativity Theory and Openness of the Future”, Philosophy of Science 60: 341–348.10.1086/289737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCall, S. (1994), A Model of the Universe. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Muller, F. (1992), “Worldlines are Growing! On Ontological Fatalism, Temporal Becoming, and the Special Theory of Relativity”, University of Utrecht, preprint.Google Scholar
Norton, J. (1992), “Philosophy of Space and Time”, in M. Salmon (ed.), Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, pp. 179–231.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1974), Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1967), “Time and Physical Geometry”, Journal of Philosophy 64: 240–247.10.2307/2024493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1981), “Quantum Mechanics and the Observer”, Erkenntnis 16: 193–216.10.1007/BF00219817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, M. (1987), Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1956), The Direction of Time. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1063/1.3059791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rietdijk, C. (1966), “A Rigorous Proof Of Determinism Derived from the Special Theory of Relativity”, Philosophy of Science 33: 341–344.10.1086/288106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rietdijk, C. (1976), “Discussion: Special Relativity and Determinism”, Philosophy of Science 43: 598–609.10.1086/288719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. (1994), “Causality Without Counterfactuals”, Philosophy of Science 61: 297–312.10.1086/289801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, S. (1995), “Time, Decoherence, and Quantum Mechanics”, Synthese 102: 235–266.10.1007/BF01089802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimony, A. (1984), “Controllable and Uncontrollable Non-Locality”, in Kamefuchi, S. et al. (ed.), Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in Light of New Technology. Tokyo: Physical Society of Japan, pp. 225–230.Google Scholar
Sklar, L. (1981), “Time, Reality and Relativity”, in Healey, R. (ed.), Reduction, Time, and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 129–142.Google Scholar
Stein, H. (1968), “On Einstein-Minkowski spacetime”, Journal of Philosophy 65: 5–23.10.2307/2024512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, H. (1991), “On Relativity Theory and the Openness of the Future”, Philosophy of Science 58: 147–167.10.1086/289609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, P. (1989), “Relational Holism”, in Cushing, J. and McMullin, E. (ed.), Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, pp. 208–223.Google Scholar
Torretti, R. (1983), Relativity and Geometry. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. (1978), “Time: Physical and Experiential”, Epistemologia 1: 323–336.Google Scholar