Humean supervenience and Quine

1

I am wondering if Quine would adopt the Lewis' Humean supervenience theory to make sense of probability. Quine is a subjectivist about probability (even though regarding probability in QM he thinks that it would be better to adhere to an extensional propensity view, which does not deepen further) and Lewis believes that probability could be considered both in a subjectivist way and in an objectivist one. Do you think that Lewis' humean supervenience would solve all the issues related to Quine's viewpoint on probability in QM?

W.V.O.

Posted 2019-08-21T10:35:54.780

Reputation: 21

Since Lewis (David, I presume) was Quine's student Quine clearly had an opportunity to adopt his conception. Yet he did not. Lewis was far more permissive in his metaphysics of possible worlds (over which probabilities would live on, presumably) than Quine was comfortable with. And it is unclear how Humean supervenience would help with quantum probabilities considering that it fails for quantum mechanics, as Lewis himself admitted.

– Conifold – 2019-08-22T06:22:50.823

Thank you @Conifold. Why you say that David Lewis’ Humean supervenience fails for QM? I have read that Humean supervenience seems to be true in the case of Bohmian Mechanics. Moreover, I have checked out the article “Quantum Humeanism or: physicalism without properties by Esfeld” which seems to demonstrate that quantum physics strengthens humean supervenience and he does not refer to Bohmian Mechanics only. This is the link to the article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.5666.pdf

– W.V.O. – 2019-08-22T17:38:53.650

Those are small minority interpretations, especially the Bohmian mechanics, which not even Lewis shared. – Conifold – 2019-08-22T17:40:59.657

Thanks @Conifold which are the major interpretations of QM? And why Lewis did not share Bohmian Mechanics? which article explains that? I would be happy to read it. – W.V.O. – 2019-08-23T09:33:03.183

Copenhagen and, more recently, Many Worlds. Bohmian Mechanics has Bohmian particles, which, like ether, are undetectable in principle. Most physicists and analytic philosophers see adding such contrived entities, aimed at saving some metaphysical preconception, as akin to chasing the ether wind. – Conifold – 2019-08-23T17:25:12.843

No answers