Michael Dickson

Bohr’s reply to Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen’s argument for the incompleteness of quantum theory is notoriously difficult to unravel. It is so diffcult, in fact, that over 60 years later, there remains important work to be done understanding it. Work by Fine , Beller and Fine , and Beller goes a long way towards correcting earlier misunderstandings of Bohr’s reply. This essay is intended as a contribution to the program of getting to the truth of the matter, both historically and philosophically. In a paper of this length, a full account of Bohr’s reply is impossible, and so I shall focus on one issue where it seems further clarification is required, namely, Bohr’s attempt to illustrate EPR’s argument by means of a thought experiment. In addition, I shall attempt to clarify a few other points which, however minor, have apparently contributed to misunderstandings of Bohr’s position. As the title of this paper suggests, an account of these few points does not constitute an account of Bohr’s reply, but it is an important step in that direction

I introduce and review the most recent and most promising model of state vector reduction, that of Ghirardi, Rimini, Weber, and Pearle. This model requires the specification of a reduction basis. At least two questions therefore arise: Are there physical reasons to choose one basis rather than another? Does the choice made lead to any undesirable consequences? I argue that there arephysical reasons to choose from a certain class of reduction bases (a class which includes the choice made by the authors mentioned above), and that such a choice does not lead to problems, contra an argument by Albert and Vaidman

Is the quantum-logic interpretation dead? Its near total absence from current discussions about the interpretation of quantum theory suggests so. While mathematical work on quantum logic continues largely unabated, interest in the quantum-logic interpretation seems to be almost nil, at least in Anglo-American philosophy of physics. This paper has the immodest purpose of changing that fact. I shall argue that while the quantum-logic interpretation faces challenges, it remains a live option. The usual objections either miss the mark, or admit a reasonable answer, or fail to decide the issue conclusively.

Since the fundamental challenge that I laid at the doorstep of the pluralists was to defend, with nonderivative models, a strong notion of genic cause, it is fatal that Waters has failed to meet that challenge. Waters agrees with me that there is only a single cause operating in these models, but he argues for a notion of causal ‘parsing’ to sustain the viability of some form of pluralism. Waters and his colleagues have some very interesting and important ideas about the sciences, involving pluralism and parsing or partitioning causes, but they are ideas in search of an example. He thinks he has found an example in the case of hierarchical and genic selection. I think he has not.

This chapter reflects on transhumanism from a Christian perspective, specifically with reference to the Biblical teaching that human beings are made in the “image” and “likeness” of God. It considers a version of that teaching that is seemingly as permissive as could be about “transhumanist technologies,” and concludes that even that version places significant limits on the pursuit and adoption of such technologies. Those limits are far more restrictive than the limits acknowledged by prominent transhumanists, particularly those with a specific focus on proposals aimed at substantially lengthening the average human lifespan.

The main goal of this essay is to propose and make plausible a framework for developing a philosophical account of musical notation. The proposed framework countenances four elements of notation: symbols (abstract objects that collectively constitute the backbone of a ‘system’ of notation), their characteristic ‘forms’ (for example, shapes, understood abstractly), the concrete instances, or ‘engravings’, of those forms, and the meanings of the symbols. It is argued that these elements are distinct. Along the way, several preliminary arguments are given for how one ought to understand them—for example, it is suggested that engravings represent symbols rather than instantiate forms, although they are characteristically seen to represent a symbol by being seen to instantiate an associated form. Having proposed this framework, the essay explores the nature of musical instructions, as the meanings of symbols, and offers an argument in favor of the commonly held (but recently challenged) view that those meanings are imperative. Specifically, composites of musical notation (paradigmatically, musical scores) primarily express instructional meaning, and denote something like ‘sonic structures’ only secondarily, in virtue of their primary, imperative, meaning.