I think it is weak on interpretation.
I found your response to this question thought provoking, thank you.Do you have a view on the ‘reality’ of the wave function?
I think that there must be something in nature that approximately resembles the wave function, or that directly gives rise to something like a wave function.
Why do I think this? Because quantum physics works phenomenally well. It explains a huge diversity of phenomena to a breathtaking degree of accuracy. How could quantum physics possibly work so well if there weren’t something out in the world that it was accurately describing?
A theory that can do that has got to be latching on to some true fact about nature, even if it’s just in an indirect or approximate way.
Adam is arguing against positivism. And positivism has been discussed among philosophers and so there are things that philosophers can bring to the table.In short, we lay the blame for the current impasse of fundamental physics and foundations of physics at the feet of dynamical thinking. We also argue that, as Adam found himself, there is a need for collaboration between physicists and philosophers on these matters.
The dynamical bias runs deep, even those who interpret QM via future boundary conditions resort to terminology such as “retrocausality,” “completed transactions” and “backwards causation.” I just attended special sessions on foundations of physics at the APS March Meeting earlier this month where Ken Wharton and I gave the only talks on the adynamical approach. [Aside: Ken only recently himself replaced the term “retrocausality” with “all-at-once view.”] Since philosophers of physics tend to follow physicists, there are very few of them who study adynamical approaches. Huw Price is a notable exception, having written a book on retrocausality (Price, H. (1996). Time’s Arrow and Archimedes Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time. Oxford University Press, Oxford) and used the term “global constraint” in a spatiotemporal sense in Price, H. (2008). Toy models for retrocausality. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 39(4):752–61. David Albert worked with Aharonov and Vaidman on weak values corresponding to the Two-State Vector Formalism (Y. Aharonov, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1351 (1988)). Peter Evans is another philosopher who has written on this topic (Evans, P. (2015). Retrocausality at no extra cost. Synthese, 192(4):1139–55). I’m sure there are more, sorry I don’t have their names. [Aside: Ruth Kastner has reanimated (if you will) the use of future boundary conditions in her approach: Kastner, R. (2013). The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The Reality of Possibility. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.] Replacing the so-called Newtonian Schema Universe (current way we explain, term from Smolin) with the Lagrangian Schema Universe (block universe way to explain, term from Wharton) is an enormous change in what it means to explain something; probably rivaling the change from Aristotelian to Newtonian thinking. Such ideas can take decades to mature. Aharonov et al. introduced the Two-State Vector Formalism in 1964 and according to Wikipedia that idea originated with Watanabe in 1955. Fifty years later (we introduced Relational Blockworld in 2005 at New Directions) time-symmetric QM finally evolved to fully adynamical thinking (block universe patterns per adynamical global constraints). So, adynamical thinking is relatively nascent.Have there been similar discussions about adynamical/dynamical thinking among philosophers?
The philosophy of QFT seems generally more open to thinking about a block world than is the philosophy of non-relativistic QM, because dynamical evolution has to be equally describable in any boosted frame (not everyone feels forced to a block world by Lorentz invariance, but it's not easy to dismiss it as a possible ontology.)Have there been similar discussions about adynamical/dynamical thinking among philosophers?
Bringing in retrocausality takes the discussion even further away from topic of this thread. I'm not going to discuss it in this thread.The dynamical bias runs deep, even those who interpret QM via future boundary conditions resort to terminology such as “retrocausality,” “completed transactions” and “backwards causation.”
I agree that it takes decades for philosophical ideas to mature, but then it takes more decades to find out if they can contribute for development of scientific knowledge.Such ideas can take decades to mature.
"Whether he has chosen to wear the right uniform will be for future readers to judge."
There's a (mixed, but overall positive) review by Mélanie Frappier on Becker's Book in today's Science.
To say that "quantum theory describes a tremendous part of the real world" is your personal "interpretation". That was my point.Quantum theory describes a tremendous part of the real world (or at least that part we can observe and objectively investigate, anyway).