{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020720276270350273, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00246669955599408, 'mean_word_length': 5.2592592592592595, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Quantum Mechanics and the Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (review)

There are strong motivations for a book, or several books, examining the relations between the two topics mentioned in the tide of this book. Quantum mechanics (QM), more than any other branch of physics, has impinged on philosophical matters. As to Whitehead's Philosophy of Organism, it is a prime candidate for being the most ambitious and scientifically well-informed system of metaphysics developed in the twentieth century, and hence a plausible locus for accommodating the philosophical implications of QM and possibly for suggesting modifications of them. Epperson enthusiastically develops one of the possible theses concerning the relation of QM to Whitehead's philosophy: that they mesh admirably. After surveying the various interpretations of the formalism of QM and outiining his preference for the family of "decoherence" interpretations, he asserts, "Careful analysis reveals that this family of interpretations of quantum mechanics can be characterized as a detailed and fundamental exemplification of Whitehead's philosophy of organism as it pertains to the physical sciences" (p.226). I shall assess this strong claim by examining his philosophical treatment of the quantum mechanical measurement problem. To get quickly to the heart of the matter I assume that the reader is familiar with the standard formalism of QM, as presented in excellent textbooks. I warn that Epperson does not provide an adequate summary of this formalism. For example, although he explains the mathematical concept of a vector |r>, which according to QM represents the complete state of a physical object, he also uses the notation  without an explanation, even though it is essential to his concept of the density matrix on p. 78; nor does he explain the rules for calculating the probabilities of experimental outcomes when the density matrix is specified. The measurement problem arises when the initial state of an object S of interest is represented by