Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 175, Issue 12, pp 3217–3236 | Cite as

Quantum monism: an assessment

  • Claudio Calosi
Article
  • 206 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Monism Entanglement Emergence Quantum interpretations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. Albert, D. (1996). Elementary quantum metaphysics. In J. Cushing, A. Fine, & S. Goldstein (Eds.), Bohmian mechanics and quantum theory: An appraisal (pp. 277–284). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert, D. (2013). Wave-function realism. In D. Albert & A. Ney (Eds.), The wave function: Essays in the metaphysics of quantum mechanics (pp. 52–57). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albert, D. (2015). After physics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allori, V., Goldstein, S., Tumulka, R., & Zanghì, N. (2008). On the common structure of Bohmian mechanics and the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59, 353–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Bacciagaluppi, G., & Dickson, M. (1999). Dynamics for modal interpretations. Foundations of Physics, 29, 1165–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrett, J. (1999). The quantum mechanics of minds and worlds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Barrett, J. (2014). Everett’s relative state formulation of quantum mechanics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett/
  9. Bohm, D. (1952). A suggested interpretation of quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden variables’ I and II. Physical Review, 85, 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bohm, D., & Hiley, B. (1993). The undivided universe. An ontological interpretation of quantum theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Bub, J. (1997). Interpreting the quantum world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bub, J., & Clifton, R. (1996). A uniqueness theorem for interpretations of quantum mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 27, 181–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bub, J., & Pitowski, I. (2010). Two dogmas about quantum mechanics. In S. Saunders, J. Barrett, A. Kent, & D. Wallace (Eds.), Many worlds? Everett, quantum theory and reality (pp. 433–459). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calosi, C. (2014). Quantum mechanics and priority monism. Synthese, 191(5), 915–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Calosi, C. (2017). On the possibility of submergence. Analysis, 3, 501–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Calosi, C., & Morganti, M. (2016). Humean supervenience, composition as identity and quantum wholes. Erkenttnis, 81(6), 1173–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Casati, R., & Varzi, A. C. (1999). Parts and places. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Clifford, R. (1996). The properties of modal interpretations of quantum mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 47, 371–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Darby, G. (2012). Relational holism and human supervenience. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63, 773–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dennet, D. (1991). Real patterns. Journal of Philosophy, 88, 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DeWitt, B. S., & Graham, N. (Eds.). (1973). The many world interpretation of quantum mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Dieks, D., & Veermas, P. (Eds.). (1998). The modal interpretation of quantum mechanics. Kluwer: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  23. Earman, J. (2015). Some puzzles and unresolved issues about quantum entanglement. Erkenntnis, 80, 303–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Esfeld, M. (2014). Quantum humeanism: or physicalism without properties. The Philosophical Quarterly, 64, 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Everett, H. (1957). Relative state formulation of quantum mechanics. Review of Modern Physics, 29, 454–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. French, S. (2013). Whither Wave Function Realism? In D. Albert & A. Ney (Eds.), The wave function: Essays in the metaphysics of quantum mechanics (pp. 76–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fuchs, C. (2003). Quantum mechanics as quantum information, mostly. Journal of Modern Optics, 50, 987–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., & Weber, T. (1986). Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Physical Review D, 34, 470–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goldstein, S. (2012). Bohmian mechanics, stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
  30. Goldstein, S., & Zanghì, N. (2013). Reality and the role of the wave function in quantum theory. In D. Albert & A. Ney (Eds.), The wave function: Essays in the metaphysics of quantum mechanics (pp. 91–109). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Guigon, G. (2012). Spinoza on composition and priority. In P. Goff (Ed.), Spinoza on monism (pp. 183–205). London: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
  32. Harrigan, N., & Spekkens, R. (2010). Einstein, incompleteness and the epistemic view of quantum states. Foundations of Physics, 40, 125–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Healey, R. (2012). The world as we know it. In P. Goff (Ed.), Spinoza on monism (pp. 123–148). London: Palmgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
  34. Horgan, T., & Potrc, M. (2008). Austere realism: Contextual semantics meets minimal ontology. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ismael, J., & Schaffer, J. (2016). Quantum holism: nonseparability as common ground. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-016-1201-2.
  36. 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
  37. Laudisa, F., & Rovelli, C. (2013). Relational quantum mechanics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/
  38. Lewis, D. (1994). Humean supervenience debugged. Mind, 103, 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lewis, P. (2016). Quantum ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lombardi, O., & Dieks, D. (2012). Modal interpretations of quantum mechanics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-modal/
  41. Maudlin, T. (2007). The metaphysics within physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McDaniel, K. (2008). Against composition as identity. Analysis, 68(2), 128–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miller, E. (2013). Quantum entanglement, Bohmian mechanics and humean supervenience. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 92(3), 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Monton, B. (2006). Quantum mechanics and 3N-dimensional space. Philosophy of Science, 73, 778–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Monton, B. (2013). Against 3N-dimensional space. In D. Albert & A. Ney (Eds.), The wave function: Essays in the metaphysics of quantum mechanics (pp. 154–167). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morganti, M. (2009). Ontological priority. Fundamentality and Monism. Dialectica, 63(3), 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ney, A. (2012). The status of our ordinary three dimensions in a quantum universe. Noûs, 46(3), 525–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ney, A. (2013a). Introduction. In D. Albert & A. Ney (Eds.), The wave function: Essays in the metaphysics of quantum mechanics (pp. 1–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ney, A. (2013b). Ontological reduction and the wave function ontology. In D. Albert & A. Ney (Eds.), The wave function: Essays in the metaphysics of quantum mechanics (pp. 168–183). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ney, A. (Forthcoming). Finding the world in the wavefunction: Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-017-1349-4
  51. North, J. (2013). The structure of a quantum world. In D. Albert & A. Ney (Eds.), The wave function: Essays in the metaphysics of quantum mechanics (pp. 184–202). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Parsons, J. (2007). Theories of location. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 3, 201–232.Google Scholar
  53. Redhead, M. (1995). From physics to metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rovelli, C. (1996). Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35, 1637–1678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Saucedo, R. (2011). Parthood and location. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 6, 223–284.Google Scholar
  56. Saunders, S. (2010). Many worlds? An introduction. In S. Saunders, J. Barrett, A. Kent, & D. Wallace (Eds.), Many Worlds? Everett, quantum theory and reality (pp. 1–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schaffer, J. (2010). Monism. The priority of the whole. Philosophical Review, 119(1), 31–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schaffer, J. (2012a). Grounding, transitivity and contrastivity. In F. Correia & B. Schnieder (Eds.), Metaphysical grounding. Understanding the structure of reality (pp. 122–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Schaffer, J. (2015). Monism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/
  61. Spekkens, R. (2007). Evidence for the epistemic view of quantum states: A toy theory. Physical Review A, 75, 032110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Uzquiano, G. (2011). Mereological harmony. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 6, 199–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Frassen, B. (1991). Quantum mechanics. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vermaas, P. (1998). The pros and cons of the Kochen–Dieks and the atomic modal interpretation. In D. Dieks & P. Veermas (Eds.), The modal interpretation of quantum mechanics (pp. 103–148). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vermaas, P., & Dieks, D. (1995). The modal interpretation of quantum mechanics and its generalization to density operators. Foundations of Physics, 25, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wallace, D. (2003). Everett and structure. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science B, 34(1), 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wallace, D. (2004). Protecting cognitive science from quantum theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 636–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wallace, D. (2012). The emergent multiverse. Quantum theory according to Everett interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wallace, D. (2013). A prolegomenon to the ontology of the Everett interpretation. In D. Albert & A. Ney (Eds.), The wave function: Essays in the metaphysics of quantum mechanics (pp. 203–222). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wallace, D., & Timpson, C. (2010). Quantum mechanics on spacetime I: Spacetime state realism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61, 697–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wilson, A. (2011). Macroscopic ontology in everettian quantum mechanics. Philosophical Quarterly, 61, 363–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations