Michael Cuffaro

Selected Publications†

Articles, book chapters, and essay reviews
• The Philosophy of Quantum Computing. Forthcoming in Quantum Computing in the Arts and Humanities: An Introduction to Core Concepts, Theory and Applications (Springer), Eduardo Miranda (Ed.).
• From the philosopher's perspective, the interest in quantum computation stems primarily from the way that it combines fundamental concepts from two distinct sciences: physics (especially quantum mechanics) and computer science, each long a subject of philosophical speculation and analysis in its own right. Quantum computing combines both of these more traditional areas of inquiry into one wholly new (if not quite independent) science. There are philosophical questions that arise from this merger, and philosophical lessons to be learned. Over the course of this chapter we discuss what I take to be some of the most important.
• Grete Hermann, Quantum Mechanics, and the Evolution of Kantian Philosophy. Forthcoming in Women in the History of Analytic Philosophy (Springer), J. Peijnenburg and S. Verhaegh (eds.).
• This chapter is about Grete Hermann, a philosopher-mathematician who productively and mutually beneficially interacted with the founders of quantum mechanics in the early period of that theory's elaboration. Hermann was a neo-Kantian philosopher. At the heart of Immanuel Kant's critical philosophy lay the question of the conditions under which we can be said to know something objectively, a question Hermann found to be particularly pressing in quantum mechanics. Hermann's own approach to Neo-Kantianism was Neo-Friesian. Jakob Friedrich Fries, like Kant, had understood critical philosophy to be an essentially epistemic project. Fries departed from Kant in his account of the elements involved in our cognition. In this chapter it is discussed how, beginning from a neo-Friesian understanding of critical philosophy, Hermann is led to conclude that quantum mechanics shows us that physical knowledge is fundamentally split; that the objects of quantum mechanics are only objects from a particular perspective and in the context of a particular physical interaction. It will be seen how Hermann's solution to the problem of objectivity in quantum mechanics is a natural one from a neo-Friesian point of view, even though it disagrees with those offered by more orthodox versions of Kantian doctrine.
• Essay review (with Emerson P. Doyle) of Bub & Bub's Totally Random. Foundations of Physics, 51 (2021), 28:1-28:16.
• This is an extended essay review of Tanya and Jeffrey Bub's Totally Random: Why Nobody Understands Quantum Mechanics: A serious comic on entanglement. We review the philosophical aspects of the book, provide suggestions for instructors on how to use the book in a class setting, and evaluate the authors’ artistic choices in the context of comics theory. Although Totally Random does not defend any particular interpretation of quantum mechanics, we find that, in its mode of presentation, Totally Random is a beautiful expression and illustration of the information-theoretic interpretation and its value.
• "Information Causality, the Tsirelson Bound, and the 'Being-Thus' of Things." Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 72 (2020), 266-277
• The principle of information causality' can be used to derive an upper bound---known as the Tsirelson bound'---on the strength of quantum mechanical correlations, and has been conjectured to be a foundational principle of nature. To date, however, it has not been sufficiently motivated to play such a foundational role. The motivations that have so far been given are, as I argue, either unsatisfactorily vague or appeal to little if anything more than intuition. Thus in this paper I consider whether some way might be found to successfully motivate the principle. And I propose that a compelling way of so doing is to understand it as a methodological generalisation of Einstein's principle of the mutually independent existence—the being-thus'—of spatially distant things. In particular I first describe an argument, due to Demopoulos, to the effect that the so-called no-signalling' condition can be viewed as a generalisation of Einstein's principle that is appropriate for an irreducibly statistical theory such as quantum mechanics. I then argue that a compelling way to motivate information causality is to in turn consider it as a further generalisation of the Einsteinian principle that is appropriate for a theory of communication. I describe, however, some important conceptual obstacles that must yet be overcome if the project of establishing information causality as a foundational principle of nature is to succeed.
• "Quantum Computing" (with Amit Hagar), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
• "Universality, Invariance, and the Foundations of Computational Complexity in the light of the Quantum Computer." In Technology and Mathematics: Philosophical and Historical Investigations (Springer-Verlag), Sven Ove Hansson, ed. (2018).
• Computational complexity theory is a branch of computer science dedicated to classifying computational problems in terms of their difficulty. While computability theory tells us what we can compute in principle, complexity theory informs us regarding our practical limits. In this chapter I argue that the science of \emph{quantum computing} illuminates complexity theory by emphasising that its fundamental concepts are not model-independent, but that this does not, as some suggest, force us to radically revise the foundations of the theory. For model-independence never has been essential to those foundations. The fundamental aim of complexity theory is to describe what is achievable in practice under various models of computation for our various practical purposes. Reflecting on quantum computing illuminates complexity theory by reminding us of this, too often under-emphasised, fact.
• "Reconsidering No-Go Theorems from a Practical Perspective." The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 69 (2018), 633-655
• I argue that our judgements regarding the locally causal models which are compatible with a given quantum no-go theorem implicitly depend, in part, on the context of inquiry. It follows from this that certain no-go theorems, which are particularly striking in the traditional foundational context, have no force when the context switches to a discussion of the physical systems we are capable of building with the aim of classically reproducing quantum statistics. I close with a general discussion of the possible implications of this for our understanding of the limits of classical description, and for our understanding of the fundamental aim of physical investigation.
• "On the Significance of the Gottesman-Knill Theorem." The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 68 (2017), 91-121.
• According to the Gottesman-Knill theorem, quantum algorithms which utilise only the operations belonging to a certain restricted set are efficiently simulable classically. Since some of the operations in this set generate entangled states, it is commonly concluded that entanglement is insufficient to enable quantum computers to outperform classical computers. I argue in this paper that this conclusion is misleading. First, the statement of the theorem (that the particular set of quantum operations in question can be simulated using a classical computer) is, on reflection, already evident when we consider Bell's and related inequalities in the context of a discussion of computational machines. This, in turn, helps us to understand that the appropriate conclusion to draw from the Gottesman-Knill theorem is not that entanglement is insufficient to enable a quantum performance advantage, but rather that if we limit ourselves to the operations referred to in the Gottesman-Knill theorem, we will not have used the resources provided by an entangled quantum system to their full potential.
• "How-Possibly Explanations in (Quantum) Computer Science." Philosophy of Science, 82 (2015), 737-748.
• A primary goal of quantum computer science is to find an explanation for the fact that quantum computers are more powerful than classical computers. In this paper I argue that to answer this question is to compare algorithmic processes of various kinds, and in so doing to describe the possibility spaces associated with these processes. By doing this we explain how it is possible for one process to outperform its rival. Further, in this and similar examples little is gained in subsequently asking a how-actually question. Once one has explained how-possibly there is little left to do.
• "On the Debate Concerning the Proper Characterisation of Quantum Dynamical Evolution." Philosophy of Science, 80 (2013), 1125-1136 (with Wayne C. Myrvold).
• There has been a long-standing and sometimes passionate debate between physicists over whether a dynamical framework for quantum systems should incorporate not completely positive (NCP) maps in addition to completely positive (CP) maps. Despite the reasonableness of the arguments for complete positivity, we argue that NCP maps should be allowed, with a qualification: these should be understood, not as reflecting 'not completely positive' evolution, but as linear extensions, to a system's entire state space, of CP maps that are only partially defined. Beyond the domain of definition of a partial-CP map, we argue, much may be permitted.
• "Many Worlds, the Cluster-state Quantum Computer, and the Problem of the Preferred Basis." Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 43 (2012), 35-42.
• I argue that the many worlds explanation of quantum computation is not licensed by, and in fact is conceptually inferior to, the standard neo-Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics from which it receives its inspiration. I argue that the many worlds explanation of quantum computation is incompatible with the more recently developed cluster state model of quantum computation. Based on these considerations I conclude that we should reject the many worlds explanation of quantum computation.
• "Kant and Frege on Existence and the Ontological Argument." History of Philosophy Quarterly, 29 (2012), 337-354.
Link to published version  Show/Hide Abstract
• I argue that Kant's and Frege's refutations of the ontological argument are more similar than has generally been acknowledged. As I clarify, for both Kant and Frege, to say that something exists is to assert of a concept that it is instantiated. With such an assertion one expresses that there is a particular relation between the instantiating object and a rational subject - a particular mode of presentation for the object in question. By its very nature such a relation cannot be the property of an object and thus cannot be included in the concept of that object. Thus the ontological argument, which takes existence to be a part of the concept of the supreme being, cannot, according to Kant and Frege, succeed. A secondary goal of the paper is to illuminate what I take to be a deep affinity between Kant's and Frege's views more generally: that Frege's fundamental distinction between the sense and the referent of a proposition echoes, in an important way, Kant's distinction between concepts and the formal principles for their application to experience.
• "The Conditions of Tolerance." Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, 11 (2012), 322-344 (with Ryan Muldoon and Michael Borgida).
Link to published version  Show/Hide Abstract
• The philosophical tradition of liberal political thought has come to see tolerance as a crucial element of a liberal political order. However, while much has been made of the value of toleration, little work has been done on individual-level motivations for tolerant behavior. In this article, we seek to develop an account of the rational motivations for toleration and of where the limits of toleration lie. We first present a very simple model of rational motivations for toleration. Key to this model is an application of David Ricardo's model of trade to thinking about toleration. This model supports the claim that we always have reasons to be as tolerant as possible. We then explore why we do not always see tolerant attitudes in the actual world, and point to some potential preconditions for toleration that the initial model does not capture. Subsequently, we examine a more detailed model that allows us to investigate more carefully the conditions under which tolerant behavior can be rewarded. We conclude by arguing that a consideration of self-interested motivations for toleration is essential to the success of a robust theory of toleration for a diverse society, but that even this approach has its limitations.
• "On Thomas Hobbes' Fallible Natural Law Theory." History of Philosophy Quarterly, 28 (2011), 175-190.
Link to published version  Show/Hide Abstract
• I focus on two aspects of Hobbes's philosophy of law to argue that it is closer to the natural law tradition than to legal positivism. First, I draw on Ronald Dworkin's analysis of the distinction between legal positivism and natural law theory with respect to the role of principles in judicial decision making to argue that Hobbes's view of principles accords better with the natural law view. Second I show how Hobbes's requirement that the natural law remain unwritten prevents Hobbes's view from becoming a 'for all practical purposes' legal positivist view.
• "The Kantian Framework of Complementarity." Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41 (2010), 309-317.
• A growing number of commentators have, in recent years, noted the important affinities in the views of Immanuel Kant and Niels Bohr. While these commentators are correct, the picture they present of the connections between Bohr and Kant is painted in broad strokes; it is open to the criticism that these affinities are merely superficial. In this essay, I provide a closer, structural, analysis of both Bohr's and Kant's views that makes these connections more explicit. In particular, I demonstrate the similarities between Bohr's argument, on the one hand, that neither the wave nor the particle description of atomic phenomena pick out an object in the ordinary sense of the word, and Kant's requirement, on the other hand, that both 'mathematical' (having to do with magnitude) and 'dynamical' (having to do with an object's interaction with other objects) principles must be applicable to appearances in order for us to determine them as objects of experience. I argue that Bohr's 'Complementarity interpretation' of quantum mechanics, which views atomic objects as idealizations, and which licenses the repeal of the principle of causality for the domain of atomic physics, is perfectly compatible with, and indeed follows naturally from a broadly Kantian epistemological framework.

Papers in progress

• The Influence of Transcendental Idealism on 19th Century Science (working title), to appear in \emph{History and Philosophy of Modern Science:1750-1900}, Crull, E., and Peterson, E. (eds.), Bloomsbury Press.
• The Open Systems View (with Stephan Hartmann).
• Objective Reality as an Emergent Phenomenon (with Markus P. Müller).

Thesis and dissertation

• Ph.D. Dissertation (2013): On the Physical Explanation for Quantum Computational Speedup.
• I argue that Immanuel Kant's critical philosophy—in particular the doctrine of transcendental idealism which grounds it—is best understood as an epistemic' or metaphilosophical' doctrine. As such it aims to show how one may engage in the natural sciences and in metaphysics under the restriction that certain conditions are imposed on our cognition of objects. Underlying Kant's doctrine, however, is an ontological posit, of a sort, regarding the fundamental nature of our cognition. This posit, sometimes called the `discursivity thesis', while considered to be completely obvious and uncontroversial by some, has nevertheless been denied by thinkers both before and after Kant. One such thinker is Jakob Friedrich Fries, an early neo-Kantian thinker who, despite his rejection of discursivity, also advocated for a metaphilosophical understanding of critical philosophy. As I will explain, a consequence for Fries of the denial of discursivity is a radical reconceptualisation of the method of critical philosophy; whereas this method is a priori for Kant, for Fries it is in general empirical. I discuss these issues in the context of quantum theory, and I focus in particular on the views of the physicist Niels Bohr and the Neo-Friesian philosopher Grete Hermann. I argue that Bohr's understanding of quantum mechanics can be seen as a natural extension of an orthodox Kantian viewpoint in the face of the challenges posed by quantum theory, and I compare this with the extension of Friesian philosophy that is represented by Hermann's view.