Albert Solé

In this paper, we examine possible formalisations of the riskiness condition for hypothesis testing. First, we informally introduce derivability and riskiness as testing conditions together with the corresponding arguments for refutation and confirmation. Then, we distinguish two different senses of confirmation and focus our discussion on one of them with the aid of a historical example. In the remaining sections, we offer a brief overview of the main references to the risky condition in the literature and scrutinise different options for formally capturing riskiness; we show why none of them works. We conclude with some remarks about the relation between derivability and riskiness and claim that riskiness essentially involves a contextual, pragmatic component that eludes a complete formal reconstruction.

In this paper, I critically assess different interpretations of Bohmian mechanics that are not committed to an ontology based on the wave function being an actual physical object that inhabits configuration space. More specifically, my aim is to explore the connection between the denial of configuration space realism and another interpretive debate that is specific to Bohmian mechanics: the quantum potential versus guidance approaches. Whereas defenders of the quantum potential approach to the theory claim that Bohmian mechanics is better formulated as quasi-Newtonian, via the postulation of forces proportional to acceleration; advocates of the guidance approach defend the notion that the theory is essentially first-order and incorporates some concepts akin to those of Aristotelian physics. Here I analyze whether the desideratum of an interpretation of Bohmian mechanics that is both explanatorily adequate and not committed to configuration space realism favors one of these two approaches to the theory over the other. Contrary to some recent claims in the literature, I argue that the quasi-Newtonian approach based on the idea of a quantum potential does not come out the winner

© 2014, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. To examine change from 1991 to 2001 in disability-free life expectancy in the age range 60–90 by gender, race, and education in the United States. Mortality is estimated over two 10-year follow-up periods for persons in the National Health Interview Surveys of 1986/1987 and 1996/1997. Vital status is ascertained through the National Death Index. Disability prevalence is estimated from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys of 1988–1994 and 1999–2002. Disability is defined as ability to perform four activities of daily living without difficulty. Disability-free life expectancy increased only among white men. Disabled life expectancy increased for all groups—black and white men and women. Racial differences in disability-free life expectancy widened among men; gender differences were reduced among whites. Expansion of socioeconomic differentials in disability-free life at older ages occurred among white men and women and black women. The 1990s was a period where the increased years of life between ages 60 and 90 were concentrated in disabled years for most population groups.

Englert et al. claim that, in certain circumstances, the Bohmian trajectory of a test particle does not match the reports of which-path detectors, concluding that the Bohmian trajectories are not real, but “surrealistic.” However, Hiley and Callaghan argue that, if Bohm’s interpretation is correctly applied, no such mismatch is ever sanctioned. Unfortunately, the debate was never settled since nobody showed where the source of disagreement resided. In this paper, I reassess the debate over such “surrealistic” trajectories and I derive both a necessary and a sufficient condition for there to be a mismatch between the Bohmian trajectories and the reports of which-path detectors. I conclude that the mismatch is possible as a matter of principle, but can be ruled out in practice. I explore in depth the philosophical consequences of such mismatch arguing that it does not render realism about the Bohmian trajectories untenable. In addition, I show that the opposing conclusion of Hiley and Callaghan is due to the fact that they assume a set of trajectories that are incompatible with the postulates of Bohmian mechanics.

Bohmian mechanics is commonly characterized as just another interpretation of quantum mechanics.In this paper I defend an alternative view, according to which Bohmian mechanics is better understood as a theory that can be interpreted in many ways. After characterizing the interpretive divide between the quantum potential approach and the guidance approach to Bohmian mechanics, I show that different interpretations of the theory correspond to radically different and often incompatible ontologies or Bohmian worlds. More concretely, I discuss the possibility of an interpretation of Bohmian mechanics that is fully compatible with a purely three-dimensional ontology and I explore the main interpretive possibilities with respect to the properties of the Bohmian particles. Finally, by contrasting the different Bohmian worlds discussed, I show that the choice of interpretation within Bohmian mechanics is as relevant as it is within quantum mechanics.

En esta tesis hacemos un análisis comparativo de las distintas interpretaciones de la mecánica bohmiana en relación con el realismo científico. En primer lugar discutimos si cabe encontrar una interpretación de la teoría que satisfaga el requisito de que toda entidad real existe en el espacio físico tridimensional. Luego, discutimos el desempeño de las distintas interpretaciones de la teoría en relación con el principio de fiabilidad de la medida. Finalmente, analizamos el argumento de las trayectorias surrealistas. De acuerdo con este argumento, una interpretación realista de las trayectorias bohmianas es insostenible puesto que se dan situaciones en las que dichas trayectorias difieren de lo indicado por los detectores de camino. En relación con esta última cuestión derivamos unas condiciones precisas de ocurrencia de las trayectorias surrealistas y defendemos que, si bien es posible que las trayectorias bohmianas difieran de lo indicado por los detectores de camino, no se sigue de ello que una interpretación realista de las mismas sea insostenible. Puesto que siempre cabe encontrar una interpretación de la mecánica bohmiana que satisface los requisitos realistas discutidos, concluimos a favor del vigor realista de la teoría. Además, puesto que la satisfacción de dichos requisitos depende de la interpretación de la teoría considerada, defendemos que en mecánica bohmiana la cuestión de la interpretación es tan relevante como lo es en mecánica cuántica.