Putnam looks at quantum mechanics (again and again)

TL;DR

This paper critically examines Hilary Putnam's evolving views on the necessity of interpreting quantum mechanics, defending his later skepticism and analyzing historical and philosophical implications.

Contribution

It clarifies and defends Putnam's position on quantum interpretation, contrasting it with prior objections and evaluating his assessments over time.

Findings

Putnam's later skepticism about quantum interpretation is largely justified.

Objections based on his earlier work are deflated and found unconvincing.

Putnam's pessimistic conclusion remains compelling and relevant.

Abstract

Hilary Putnam (1965, 2005) has argued that from a realist perspective, quantum mechanics stands in need of an interpretation. Ironically, this hypothesis may appear vulnerable against arguments drawing on Putnam's own work. Nancy Cartwright (2005) has urged that his 1962 essay on the meaning of theoretical terms suggests that quantum mechanics needs no interpretation and thus stands in tension with his claim of three years later. She furthermore contends that this conflict should be resolved in favour of the earlier work, as quantum mechanics, like all successful theories, does not need an interpretation. The first part of this essay deflates both of these objections. The second part addresses and evaluates Putnam's own assessments of the main interpretative options available in 1965 and 2005. Although we may disagree on some aspects, his pessimistic conclusion will come out largely unscathed, and, in fact, enhanced. I will close by briefly stating the historical relevance of this work.