Investigations of Realism through Reconsiderations of Conceptual Foundations of Modem Physics

我通过对量子力学解释问题的研究，考虑了实在论的可能性，并得到了科学研究资助。科学实在论是一种立场，认为科学理论给出的图景得到了充分的证实，是客观真实的。在科学史上，每一种科学理论都以其恰当的世界形象呈现出来。然而，在二十世纪初出现的量子力学中，它的数学形式主义被提出为一种连接观测结果的算法，没有任何一致的世界图景。物理学家在某些情况下接受世界的粒子图像，在另一些情况下接受起伏图像。因此，他们无法向世界提供一致的图景。这意味着他们不能采用科学现实主义。因为世界图景本身并不是为了持有科学现实主义。我已经制定了相对论，使其组成部分直接对应于现实的元素，检查了我提出的量子场论的模式解释，并在日本科学哲学学会会议上宣布了所谓的算符场不能被视为真实的结论。我已经考虑了在世界本质上应该是概率的情况下，我们对世界的认识所提出的条件，并研究了在这种情况下，概率的倾向解释是否成立。我得出的积极结论是在日本科学哲学协会研讨会和名古屋哲学学会研讨会上宣布的。这一结论的一部分发表在《日本科学哲学协会杂志》32(2)上。

I have considered the possibility of the realism through investigations of the interpretation problem of quantum mechanics, supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research. Scientific realism is the position that accepts as objectively real the picture given by scientific theories confirmed enough. In the history of science, each scientific theory has been presented with its proper image of the world. However, in quantum mechanics that appeared at the beginning of the twentieth century, its mathematical formalism was presented as an algorithm connecting observational results, without any consistent picture of the world. Physicists accept the particle image of the world in some cases, and the undulation image in other cases. Thus they cannot give the consistent picture to the world. This means that they could not adopt scientific realism. Because the world picture itself is not given to hold scientific realism. I have formulated the theory of relativity so that its components directly correspond to elements of the reality, examined the modal interpretation of quantum field theory under my formulation, and announced in the meeting of Philosophy of Science Society Japan the conclusion that the so-called field of operators cannot be regarded as real. And I have considered the conditions to be posed to our knowledge of the world in case that the world should be essentially probabilistic, and examined whether the propensity interpretation of probability hold or not in that case. The positive conclusion I reached to was announced in the symposium of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science and in the seminar of Nagoya Philosophy Society. Part of that conclusion was published in Journal of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science 32(2).