It is not very often that one reads a paper in the Philosophy Archives that makes sense because most of the stuff posted there are, in the best case, reiterations of old and worthless ideas, or in the worst case, the type of circular reasoning one has come to accept from a generation of scientists who spend taxpayer money on trying to prove that p ↔ p.
The paper “Against the ‘No-Go’ Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics” by Federico Laudisa of the Department of Human Sciences, University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy, is an exemption to the rule. With clear logic and concise language he explains the flawed reasoning behind three no-go theorem in QM. The paper is a must read, period. It sets the standard for future research not only in QM but also in science in general. In the words of the author:
The search for negative results of a general sort seems to hide the implicit tendency to avoid or postpone the really hard job: the attempt to interpret quantum mechanics according to a foundationally robust sense of ‘interpretation’, namely the attempt to make sense of it within a scientific image of the world in which we strive to understand what nature is and not what our theorizing is forced to be silent on.
The above is a brave statement that goes against a strong wave of an industry that has grown like a beast that eats science’s flesh. In the words of the author:
…a true industry appears to have developed in the last decades with the aim of proving as many results as possible concerning what there cannot be in the quantum realm.
The author of the paper considers three results concerning respectively local realism, quantum covariance and predictive power in quantum mechanics and shows how controversial the main conditions of the negative theorem turn out to be.
I go one step further. This is not only an issue of controversial conditions but also one of either confusion or even intentional obscurantism because of hidden ideological preferences. Yes, it is true that many in the scientific community are opposed to scientific realism but this is more because of ideology rather than a scientific stand.
Consider methodological naturalism: Most scientists that are fierce supporters of this doctrine are not so because they have conclusive proof that no supernatural cause was involved in the creation of the cosmos but because they are motivated so by ideology, the same but opposite kind of ideology that motivates creationists to argue the world was create by a Supreme Being.
The fact is that neither side knows exactly what the true nature of this world is. Quantum mechanics has been very successful in descrbing the phenomena in the microcosm but it still fails to provide a remote explanation of how from the indeterminism of the quantum realm emerges the amazing determinism of the macrocosm that has been verified to a few parts in a trillion in laboratory experiments. It is ludicrous to try to use such successful theory to deny local realism via no-go theorems when the ontology of the world is unknown. I could understand the denial as part of ideology but those who assert it must be brave enough to admit that they are pushing ideology and stop using science to promote their agenda.