scholarly journals Quantum ontology without speculation

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Egg
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Ontological Commitment ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Hard Case ◽  
Quantum Ontology

AbstractExisting proposals concerning the ontology of quantum mechanics (QM) either involve speculation that goes beyond the scientific evidence or abandon realism about large parts of QM. This paper proposes a way out of this dilemma, by showing that QM as it is formulated in standard textbooks allows for a much more substantive ontological commitment than is usually acknowledged. For this purpose, I defend a non-fundamentalist approach to ontology, which is then applied to various aspects of QM. In particular, I will defend realism about spin, which has been viewed as a particularly hard case for the ontology of QM.

To Be, Not To Be, Maybe

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Maudlin
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Quantum Theory ◽  
Recent Book ◽  
Quantum Ontology

Philosopher of science Tim Maudlin reviews a recent book on quantum theory and its implications for philosophy: Quantum Ontology: A Guide to the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics by Peter J. Lewis.

scholarly journals Objective Quantum Fields, Retrocausality and Ontology

Entropy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 749
Author(s):  
Peter D. Drummond ◽  
Margaret D. Reid
Keyword(s):  
Field Theory ◽  
Quantum Field Theory ◽  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Guided Wave ◽  
Interpretation Of Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Quantum Field ◽  
Quantum Fields ◽  
Consistent Histories ◽  
Quantum Ontology

We compare different approaches to quantum ontology. In particular, we discuss an interpretation of quantum mechanics that we call objective quantum field theory (OQFT), which involves retrocausal fields. Here, objective implies the existence of fields independent of an observer, but not that the results of conjugate measurements are predetermined: the theory is contextual. The ideas and analyses of Einstein and Bohr through to more recent approaches to objective realism are discussed. We briefly describe measurement induced projections, the guided wave interpretation, many-universes, consistent histories and modal theories. These earlier interpretations are compared with OQFT. We argue that this approach is compatible both with Bohr’s quantum complementarity and Einstein’s objective realism.

Lessons Learned From Coaching Postsecondary Students With Traumatic Brain Injury

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-96
Author(s):  
Mary R. T. Kennedy
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Sense Of Self ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Sudden Onset ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Exhaustive List

Purpose The purpose of this clinical focus article is to provide speech-language pathologists with a brief update of the evidence that provides possible explanations for our experiences while coaching college students with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Method The narrative text provides readers with lessons we learned as speech-language pathologists functioning as cognitive coaches to college students with TBI. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but rather to consider the recent scientific evidence that will help our understanding of how best to coach these college students. Conclusion Four lessons are described. Lesson 1 focuses on the value of self-reported responses to surveys, questionnaires, and interviews. Lesson 2 addresses the use of immediate/proximal goals as leverage for students to update their sense of self and how their abilities and disabilities may alter their more distal goals. Lesson 3 reminds us that teamwork is necessary to address the complex issues facing these students, which include their developmental stage, the sudden onset of trauma to the brain, and having to navigate going to college with a TBI. Lesson 4 focuses on the need for college students with TBI to learn how to self-advocate with instructors, family, and peers.

Medical and Legal Issues Raised by the Protz Decision Issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 12-13
Author(s):  
LuAnn Haley ◽  
Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Complex Concept ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Compensation Claims ◽  
Recent Edition ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Pennsylvania adopted the impairment rating provisions described in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) in 1996 as an exposure cap for employers seeking predictability and cost control in workers’ compensation claims. In 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down the Protz decision, which held that requiring physicians to apply the methodology set forth in the most recent edition of the AMA Guides reflected an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the American Medical Association. The decision eliminates the impairment-rating evaluation (IRE) mechanism under which claimants were assigned an impairment rating under the most recent edition of the AMA Guides. The AMA Guides periodically are revised to include the most recent scientific evidence regarding impairment ratings, and the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, acknowledges that impairment is a complex concept that is not yet defined in a way that readily permits an evidence-based definition of assessment. The AMA Guides should not be considered standards frozen in time simply to withstand future scrutiny by the courts; instead, workers’ compensation acts could state that when a new edition of the AMA Guides is published, the legislature shall review and consider adopting the new edition. It appears unlikely that the Protz decision will be followed in other jurisdictions: Challenges to using the AMA Guides in assessing workers’ compensation claims have been attempted in three states, and all attempts failed.

Comparative Analysis: The State of Colorado Study, Part II

2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Kathryn Mueller ◽  
Douglas Van Zet ◽  
Debra J. Northrup ◽  
Edward B. Whitney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Daily Living ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Assessments ◽  
Physician Judgment ◽  
History Of ◽  
Key Terms ◽  
Causation Analysis ◽  
Work Interference

Abstract [Continued from the January/February 2004 issue of The Guides Newsletter.] To understand discrepancies in reviewers’ ratings of impairments based on different editions of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), users can usefully study the history of the revisions as successive editions attempted to provide a comprehensive, valid, reliable, unbiased, and evidence-based system. Some shortcomings of earlier editions have been addressed in the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, but problems remain with each edition, largely because of the limited scientific evidence available. In the context of the history of the different editions of the AMA Guides and their development, the authors discuss and contextualize a number of key terms and principles including the following: definitions of impairment and normal; activities of daily living; maximum medical improvement; impairment percentages; conversion of regional impairments; combining impairments; pain and other subjective complaints; physician judgment; and causation analysis; finally, the authors note that impairment is not synonymous with disability or work interference. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, contrasts impairment evaluations and independent medical evaluations (this was not done in previous editions) and discusses impairment evaluations, rules for evaluations, and report standards. Upper extremity and lower extremity impairment evaluations are discussed in terms of clinical assessments and rating processes, analyzing important changes between editions and problematic areas (eg, complex regional pain syndrome).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document