Monism is roughly the view that there is only one fundamental entity. One of the most powerful argument in its favor comes from quantum mechanics. Extant discussions of quantum monism are framed independently of any interpretation of the quantum theory. In contrast, this paper argues that matters of interpretation play a crucial role when assessing the viability of monism in the quantum realm. I consider four different interpretations: modal interpretations, Bohmian mechanics, many worlds interpretations, and wavefunction realism. In particular, I extensively argue for the following claim: several interpretations of QM do not support monism at a more serious scrutiny, or do so only with further problematic assumptions, or even support different versions of it.
KeywordsMonism Entanglement Emergence Quantum interpretations
For comments and suggestions I am grateful to J. Schaffer, M. Morganti, S. French, J. Saatsi, F. Ceravolo, J. Wilson, A. Ney, N. Emery, C. Conroy, G. Bacciagaluppi, F. Muller and to everyone at eidos. I would also like to thank an anonymous referee of this journal, for very helpful suggestions on previous drafts of the paper. This work was generously founded by Swiss National Science Foundations, Project Numbers BSCGIo_157792, and 100012_165738.
- Arntzenius, F. (1999). Kochen’s interpretation of quantum mechanics. In Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (pp. 241–249).Google Scholar
- Barrett, J. (1999). The quantum mechanics of minds and worlds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Barrett, J. (2014). Everett’s relative state formulation of quantum mechanics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett/
- Bohm, D., & Hiley, B. (1993). The undivided universe. An ontological interpretation of quantum theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Bub, J. (1997). Interpreting the quantum world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Casati, R., & Varzi, A. C. (1999). Parts and places. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- DeWitt, B. S., & Graham, N. (Eds.). (1973). The many world interpretation of quantum mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Dieks, D., & Veermas, P. (Eds.). (1998). The modal interpretation of quantum mechanics. Kluwer: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
- Goldstein, S. (2012). Bohmian mechanics, stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
- Guigon, G. (2012). Spinoza on composition and priority. In P. Goff (Ed.), Spinoza on monism (pp. 183–205). London: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
- Healey, R. (2012). The world as we know it. In P. Goff (Ed.), Spinoza on monism (pp. 123–148). London: Palmgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
- Ismael, J., & Schaffer, J. (2016). Quantum holism: nonseparability as common ground. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-016-1201-2.
- Kochen, S. (1985). A new interpretation of quantum mechanics. In P. Mittelstaedt & P. Lahti (Eds.), Symposium on the foundations of modern physics (pp. 151–169). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
- Laudisa, F., & Rovelli, C. (2013). Relational quantum mechanics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/
- Lombardi, O., & Dieks, D. (2012). Modal interpretations of quantum mechanics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-modal/
- Ney, A. (Forthcoming). Finding the world in the wavefunction: Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-017-1349-4
- Parsons, J. (2007). Theories of location. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 3, 201–232.Google Scholar
- Saucedo, R. (2011). Parthood and location. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 6, 223–284.Google Scholar
- Schaffer, J. (2012b). Why the world has parts: Reply to Horgan and Potrc. In P. Goff (Ed.), Spinoza on monism (pp. 77–91). London: Palmgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
- Schaffer, J. (2015). Monism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/