Citation for this page in APA citation style.

Philosophers
Mortimer Adler Rogers Albritton Alexander of Aphrodisias Samuel Alexander William Alston Anaximander G.E.M.Anscombe Anselm Louise Antony Thomas Aquinas Aristotle David Armstrong Harald Atmanspacher Robert Audi Augustine J.L.Austin A.J.Ayer Alexander Bain Mark Balaguer Jeffrey Barrett William Barrett William Belsham Henri Bergson George Berkeley Isaiah Berlin Richard J. Bernstein Bernard Berofsky Robert Bishop Max Black Susanne Bobzien Emil du Bois-Reymond Hilary Bok Laurence BonJour George Boole Émile Boutroux F.H.Bradley C.D.Broad Michael Burke Lawrence Cahoone C.A.Campbell Joseph Keim Campbell Rudolf Carnap Carneades Ernst Cassirer David Chalmers Roderick Chisholm Chrysippus Cicero Randolph Clarke Samuel Clarke Anthony Collins Antonella Corradini Diodorus Cronus Jonathan Dancy Donald Davidson Mario De Caro Democritus Daniel Dennett Jacques Derrida René Descartes Richard Double Fred Dretske John Dupré John Earman Laura Waddell Ekstrom Epictetus Epicurus Herbert Feigl Arthur Fine John Martin Fischer Frederic Fitch Owen Flanagan Luciano Floridi Philippa Foot Alfred Fouilleé Harry Frankfurt Richard L. Franklin Michael Frede Gottlob Frege Peter Geach Edmund Gettier Carl Ginet Alvin Goldman Gorgias Nicholas St. John Green H.Paul Grice Ian Hacking Ishtiyaque Haji Stuart Hampshire W.F.R.Hardie Sam Harris William Hasker R.M.Hare Georg W.F. Hegel Martin Heidegger Heraclitus R.E.Hobart Thomas Hobbes David Hodgson Shadsworth Hodgson Baron d'Holbach Ted Honderich Pamela Huby David Hume Ferenc Huoranszki William James Lord Kames Robert Kane Immanuel Kant Tomis Kapitan Walter Kaufmann Jaegwon Kim William King Hilary Kornblith Christine Korsgaard Saul Kripke Thomas Kuhn Andrea Lavazza Christoph Lehner Keith Lehrer Gottfried Leibniz Jules Lequyer Leucippus Michael Levin George Henry Lewes C.I.Lewis David Lewis Peter Lipton C. Lloyd Morgan John Locke Michael Lockwood E. Jonathan Lowe John R. Lucas Lucretius Alasdair MacIntyre Ruth Barcan Marcus James Martineau Storrs McCall Hugh McCann Colin McGinn Michael McKenna Brian McLaughlin John McTaggart Paul E. Meehl Uwe Meixner Alfred Mele Trenton Merricks John Stuart Mill Dickinson Miller G.E.Moore Thomas Nagel Otto Neurath Friedrich Nietzsche John Norton P.H.Nowell-Smith Robert Nozick William of Ockham Timothy O'Connor Parmenides David F. Pears Charles Sanders Peirce Derk Pereboom Steven Pinker Plato Karl Popper Porphyry Huw Price H.A.Prichard Protagoras Hilary Putnam Willard van Orman Quine Frank Ramsey Ayn Rand Michael Rea Thomas Reid Charles Renouvier Nicholas Rescher C.W.Rietdijk Richard Rorty Josiah Royce Bertrand Russell Paul Russell Gilbert Ryle Jean-Paul Sartre Kenneth Sayre T.M.Scanlon Moritz Schlick Arthur Schopenhauer John Searle Wilfrid Sellars Alan Sidelle Ted Sider Henry Sidgwick Walter Sinnott-Armstrong J.J.C.Smart Saul Smilansky Michael Smith Baruch Spinoza L. Susan Stebbing Isabelle Stengers George F. Stout Galen Strawson Peter Strawson Eleonore Stump Francisco Suárez Richard Taylor Kevin Timpe Mark Twain Peter Unger Peter van Inwagen Manuel Vargas John Venn Kadri Vihvelin Voltaire G.H. von Wright David Foster Wallace R. Jay Wallace W.G.Ward Ted Warfield Roy Weatherford C.F. von Weizsäcker William Whewell Alfred North Whitehead David Widerker David Wiggins Bernard Williams Timothy Williamson Ludwig Wittgenstein Susan Wolf Scientists Michael Arbib Walter Baade Bernard Baars Jeffrey Bada Leslie Ballentine Gregory Bateson John S. Bell Mara Beller Charles Bennett Ludwig von Bertalanffy Susan Blackmore Margaret Boden David Bohm Niels Bohr Ludwig Boltzmann Emile Borel Max Born Satyendra Nath Bose Walther Bothe Hans Briegel Leon Brillouin Stephen Brush Henry Thomas Buckle S. H. Burbury Donald Campbell Anthony Cashmore Eric Chaisson Gregory Chaitin Jean-Pierre Changeux Arthur Holly Compton John Conway John Cramer Francis Crick E. P. Culverwell Antonio Damasio Olivier Darrigol Charles Darwin Richard Dawkins Terrence Deacon Lüder Deecke Richard Dedekind Louis de Broglie Stanislas Dehaene Max Delbrück Abraham de Moivre Paul Dirac Hans Driesch John Eccles Arthur Stanley Eddington Gerald Edelman Paul Ehrenfest Albert Einstein Hugh Everett, III Franz Exner Richard Feynman R. A. Fisher David Foster Joseph Fourier Philipp Frank Steven Frautschi Edward Fredkin Lila Gatlin Michael Gazzaniga GianCarlo Ghirardi J. Willard Gibbs Nicolas Gisin Paul Glimcher Thomas Gold A. O. Gomes Brian Goodwin Joshua Greene Jacques Hadamard Mark Hadley Patrick Haggard J. B. S. Haldane Stuart Hameroff Augustin Hamon Sam Harris Hyman Hartman John-Dylan Haynes Donald Hebb Martin Heisenberg Werner Heisenberg John Herschel Art Hobson Jesper Hoffmeyer E. T. Jaynes William Stanley Jevons Roman Jakobson Pascual Jordan Ruth E. Kastner Stuart Kauffman Martin J. Klein William R. Klemm Christof Koch Simon Kochen Hans Kornhuber Stephen Kosslyn Ladislav Kovàč Leopold Kronecker Rolf Landauer Alfred Landé Pierre-Simon Laplace David Layzer Joseph LeDoux Benjamin Libet Seth Lloyd Hendrik Lorentz Josef Loschmidt Ernst Mach Donald MacKay Henry Margenau James Clerk Maxwell Ernst Mayr John McCarthy Warren McCulloch George Miller Stanley Miller Ulrich Mohrhoff Jacques Monod Emmy Noether Alexander Oparin Abraham Pais Howard Pattee Wolfgang Pauli Massimo Pauri Roger Penrose Steven Pinker Colin Pittendrigh Max Planck Susan Pockett Henri Poincaré Daniel Pollen Ilya Prigogine Hans Primas Adolphe Quételet Jürgen Renn Juan Roederer Jerome Rothstein David Ruelle Tilman Sauer Jürgen Schmidhuber Erwin Schrödinger Aaron Schurger Claude Shannon David Shiang Herbert Simon Dean Keith Simonton B. F. Skinner Lee Smolin Ray Solomonoff Roger Sperry John Stachel Henry Stapp Tom Stonier Antoine Suarez Leo Szilard Max Tegmark William Thomson (Kelvin) Giulio Tononi Peter Tse Vlatko Vedral Heinz von Foerster John von Neumann John B. Watson Daniel Wegner Steven Weinberg Paul A. Weiss John Wheeler Wilhelm Wien Norbert Wiener Eugene Wigner E. O. Wilson Stephen Wolfram H. Dieter Zeh Ernst Zermelo Wojciech Zurek Konrad Zuse Fritz Zwicky Presentations Biosemiotics Free Will Mental Causation James Symposium |
Don Howard
Don Howard studied for his Ph.D. under Abner Shimony at Boston University during the 1970's. This gave gave him a front-row seat for the development of John Bell's famous "inequality theorem," its first experimental tests, designed in part by Shimony, and the spectacular growth of entanglement as the "second revolution in physics."
Shortly after Howard earned his Ph.D., his BU colleague John Stachel became the first editor of the Einstein Papers Project and invited Howard to be an assistant editor on the critically important volume 2 writings from 1900 to 1909. Howard has written several papers on the early development of quantum mechanics up through the 1935 paper on the so-called Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox.
In more than one of his papers, Howard explored the deep question of "nonseparability," distinguishing it from In 1984, Howard presented a paper, "Einstein on Locality and Separability," at the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science. Shimony chaired the session. Howard noted the disregard for Einstein's work in the late 1920's and 30's, and he summarizes what Einstein was actually arguing, almost never appreciated by Einstein's colleagues...
too many physicists and philosophers have been inclined to dismiss Einstein's misgivings as being a result of the naive but forgivable failures of understanding of an old man still clinging to an outmoded, deterministic metaphysics...Howard further wrote... the Bell experiments demonstrate not the existence of a peculiar kind of 'quantum non-locality', but instead the existence of quantum non-separability. And Einstein's analysis implies that therein lie the seeds of a conflict not with special-relativistic locality constraints, but with assumptions fundamental to general relativity and any other field theory. Given their importance in what follows, the separability and locality principles should be clearly distinguished. To repeat: separability says that spatially separated systems possess separate real states; locality adds that the state of a system can be changed only by local effects, effects propagated with finite, subluminal velocities. There is no necessary connection between the two principles, though they are frequently stated as if they were one. In 1989, Howard wrote an article for the International School for History of Science meeting at Erice, Italy. It is what may be his most important contribution to Einstein Studies in general and the problem of nonseparability in particular. It was boldly titled "NICHT SEIN KANN WAS NICHT SEIN DARF," OR THE PREHISTORY OF EPR, 1909-1935: EINSTEIN'S EARLY WORRIES ABOUT THE QUANTUM MECHANICS OF COMPOSITE SYSTEMS." Howard describes Einstein's famous debates with Bohr and Einstein's well-known misgivings with quantum mechanics and writes
Why tell the story yet again? The answer is that there is more to be said. I will argue that the standard histories have overlooked what was from early on the principal reason for Einstein's reservations about quantum mechanics, namely, the non-separability of the quantum mechanical account of interactions, something ultimately unacceptable to Einstein because it could not be reconciled with the field-theoretic manner of describing interactions. Showing the significance of this issue for Einstein is important not only for the sake of setting right the historical record, but also because it makes Einstein's critique of quantum mechanics far more interesting—from the point of view of the physics involved—than if we see it resting merely on a stubborn old man's nostalgic attachment to classical determinism. Howard added a footnote,"To my knowledge, [Arthur] Fine (1986) is the only author who has so far hinted at the importance of this worry in Einstein's thinking about quantum mechanics prior to 1935. Howard summarizes the conflict with field theory...
The argument is simple. In a field theory, the fundamental ontology, the reality assumed by the theory, consists of the points of the space-time manifold and fundamental field structures, such as the metric and stressenergy tensors, assumed to be well defined at each point of the manifold. Implicitly, therefore, any field theory assumes (i) that each point of the manifold, and by extension any region of the manifold, possesses its own real state, say that represented by the metric tensor, and (ii) that all interactions are to be described in terms of changes in these separate real states, which is to say that joint states are exhaustively determined by combinations of the relevant separate states, just as the separability principle demands. If this is correct (and I think it is), and if the quantum mechanical account of interactions denies separability, then there can be no reconciliation of the two. Moreover, Einstein had not inconsiderable (if not ultimately compelling) arguments—methodological, epistemological, and metaphysical—for retaining both locality and separability, which helps to explain his dogged commitment to the field theory program as an alternative to quantum mechanics.
When Howard worked on the
the nonseparable manner in which quantum mechanics describes interacting systems..[is an]... aspect of the quantum had bothered Einstein since his own first paper on the quantum hypothesis in 1905, and from the time in 1925 when his work on Bose-Einstein statistics convinced him that it would be an unavoidable feature of any eventual quantum formalism. Howard draws our attention to Einstein's 1905 description of his light quanta as "mutually independent" particles.
Already in this first paper on the light quantum hypothesis in 1905, Einstein realized that the full story of the quantum would involve some compromise with classical notions of particle independence. He remarked explicitly that the assumption that light quanta behave like independent particle-like carriers of electromagnetic energy would yield only the Wien end of the black-body spectrum. As to what kind of independence assumption we were making here, he was quite explicit. We are assuming, he said, that Boltzmann’s principle is valid for a collection of light quanta, meaning, as he again said explicitly, that the joint probability for two light quanta to occupy two specific cells of phase space factorizes as a product of the separate occupation probabilities Einstein's 1905 paper is largely remembered as his explanation of the photoelectric effect. His Nobel Prize was specifically awarded for this work, not for his work on relativity. But the paper contains many more words on light quanta, and still more on the entropy of the radiation. In the three years before Einstein's "miracle year,' he derived the laws of statistical mechanics, mostly independent of Ludwig Boltzmann (whose work he did not fully know) and J. Willard Gibbs (whose work he did not know at all). Einstein found that the relation between entropy and probability depends on the statistical independence of non-interacting systems. Einstein wrote... If it is reasonable to speak of the probability of the state of a system, and furthermore if every entropy increase can be understood as a transition to a state of higher probability, then the entropy
This gives us entropy as the additive (extensive) quantity that Rudof Clausius wanted, that J. Clerk Maxwell found by assuming the x, y, z components of molecular velocities are statistically independent (which of course they are not exactly, for high energies, since energy is finite), and that Boltzmann confirmed with his "principle," as Einstein called it, that the entropy Howard is very insightful to focus on the "mutual independence" that grounds Einstein's deep belief in "Boltzmann's principle." Howard shows us that Einstein's greatest concern all his life was not the question of indeterminism and the uncertainty principle, but interactions between separated quantum particles.
We argue that Einstein also saw as early as 1905 the so-called "collapse of the wave function," twenty years before there was a Schrödinger wave function. If the light wave carries a
Recently, Howard posted thirty-six issues of the extremely valuable "Epistemological Letters", a privately published newsletter that were circulated to about 180 of the most prominent physicists in the world between 1973 and 1984. It contained contributions to the foundations of physics inspired by the work of Bell, which in turn had been inspired by David Bohm's revival of Louis de Broglie's "pilot wave theory." It documents the beginning of the "Age of Entanglement."
References
"Einstein on Locality and Separability.”
Nicht Sein Kann Was Nicht Sein Darf, or the Prehistory of EPR, 1909-1935: Einstein’s Early Worries about the Quantum Mechanics of Composite Systems.” In
Review of Arthur Fine's
"Who Invented the “Copenhagen Interpretation?” A Study in Mythology," in "Albert Einstein as a Philosopher of Science," Talk at the AAAS meeting, Washington, D.C. February 20, (2005)
"Albert Einstein as a Philosopher of Science,",
“Revisiting the Einstein-Bohr Dialogue.”
“Einstein and The Development of Twentieth-Century
Philosophy of Science,” in
"Virtue in Cyberconflict," in |