Celebrating Hume's Birthday: OPINION An analysis of Hume's empiricism

David Hume is famous for his empiricism, emphasizing sensory experience as the true foundation of all of human knowledge. This essay attempts to pose the question of its applicability to the complex understanding of quantum mechanics. I believe that while Hume's empiricism provides a very useful framework that can understand quantum mechanics, it does not fully validate it due to the inherent limitations of available empirical observation in the quantum realm.

Admittedly, there is an argument to be made that Hume's empiricism supports the understanding of quantum mechanics. Hume posited that all knowledge arises from sensory experience and that empirical evidence is paramount to human understanding. Quantum mechanics, as a scientific discipline, heavily relies on empirical data gathered through experiments and observations. For instance, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the behaviour of particles in the double-slit experiment are based on such empirical observations. The inherent probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics aligns with Hume's scepticism about knowledge and his belief that we can only form habits of thought (knowledge) based on repeated experiences. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which asserts that particles exist in a superposition of a plurality of states until observed, can be seen as a version of Hume's idea that knowledge is limited to what we can perceive and measure, what we can actually observe.

However, there are significant challenges in fully integrating Hume's empiricism with quantum mechanics. One key issue is the counterintuitive nature of quantum phenomena, which often defy the expectations we root in our sensory experience. For example, quantum entanglement suggests that particles can instantaneously affect each other, regardless of distance. This is a phenomenon Einstein famously referred to as "spooky action at a distance." Such occurrences challenge Hume’s reliance on empirical observation since they cannot be easily connected with our everyday sensory experiences, as there is nothing like it. Furthermore, the mathematical abstractions in quantum mechanics, such as wave functions and probability amplitudes, do not have direct empirical counterparts, posing a challenge to Hume's assertion that all knowledge is derived from sensory data, as there is a difficulty in obtaining such data.

Additionally, Hume's empiricism is based on a classical understanding of causality, where cause and effect are straightforward and observable in our universe. Quantum mechanics, however, introduces scenarios where causality is not nearly as clear-cut. For example, in the quantum world, particles can appear to be in multiple states simultaneously and can influence each other in ways that defy classical causal relationships, as mentioned in the superposition of states and entanglement, above respectively. This undermines Hume's framework at its foundations, as it depends on observable and consistent causal connections to form our sensory understanding, and in the end, form our knowledge.

In conclusion, while Hume's empiricism provides a useful perspective on the importance of empirical evidence in the scientific study of quantum mechanics, it does not actually validate the understanding Quantum mechanics presents. The counterintuitive and abstract nature of quantum phenomena, along with the complex mathematical formalism required to describe them, highlights the limitations of Hume's empirical approach. Therefore, while there are aspects of Hume's philosophy that align with the empirical foundations of quantum mechanics, the field ultimately requires a more nuanced understanding that extends beyond Hume's classical empiricism.