Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 191, Issue 5, pp 915–928 | Cite as

Quantum mechanics and Priority Monism

  • Claudio Calosi
Article

Abstract

The paper address the question of whether quantum mechanics (QM) favors Priority Monism, the view according to which the Universe is the only fundamental object. It develops formal frameworks to frame rigorously the question of fundamental mereology and its answers, namely (Priority) Pluralism and Monism. It then reconstructs the quantum mechanical argument in favor of the latter and provides a detailed and thorough criticism of it that sheds furthermore new light on the relation between parthood, composition and fundamentality in QM.

Keywords

Parthood Dependence Composition Entanglement Monism Quantum Mechanics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

For their comments and discussion I would like to thank J. Schaffer, A. Varzi, M. Morganti, C. Hoefer, M. Dorato, V. Fano, G. Torrengo, J. Diez, A. Solè and D. Dieks. I am especially grateful to two anonymous referees for this journal for their insightful, thorough and helpful suggestions.

References

  1. Beltrametti, E., & Cassinelli, G. (1981). The logic of quantum mechanics. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. Darby, G. (2012). Relational holism and humean supervenience. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63(4), 773–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Esfeld, M. (1999). Physicalism and ontological holism. Metaphilosophy, 30, 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Esfeld, M. (2004). Quantum entanglement and a metaphysics of relation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B, 35(4), 601–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goldstein, S., & Zanghì, N. (2012). Reality and the role of the wavefunction in quantum theory. In A. Ney & D. Albert (Eds.), The wave function: Essays in the metaphysics of quantum mechanics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hartle, J. (2003). The state of the universe. In G. W. Gibbons, E. P. S. Shellard, & S. J. Rankin (Eds.), The future of theoretical physics and cosmology (pp. 615–620). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Healey, R. (1991). Holism and nonseparability. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(8), 393–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M., Horodecki, K. (2007). Quantum entanglement. http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0702225v2.pdf. Accessed 7 Dec 2012.
  9. Hovda, P. (2009). What is classical mereology. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 38(1), 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Howard, D. (1989). Holism, separability, and the metaphysical implications of the Bell experiments. In I. Cushing & E. McMullin (Eds.), Philosophical consequences of quantum theory (pp. 224–253). Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hughes, R. I. G. (1992). The structure and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jauch, J. (1968). Foundations of quantum mechanics. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  13. Markosian, N. (1998). Brutal composition. Philosophical Studies, 92, 211–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Morganti, M. (2009). Ontological priority, fundamentality and Monism. Dialectica, 63(3), 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rovelli, C. (1996). Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35, 1637–1678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schaffer, J. (2003). Is there a fundamental level? Noûs, 37, 498–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schaffer, J. (2007). Monism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/. Accessed 7 Dec 2012.
  18. Schaffer, J. (2010). Monism. The priority of the whole. Philosophical Review, 119(1), 31–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schlienz, J., & Mahler, G. (1995). Description of entanglement. Physical Review A, 52(6), 4396–4404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Teller, P. (1986). Relational holism and quantum mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 37, 71–81.Google Scholar
  21. Teller, P. (1989). Relativity, relational holism and the Bell inequalities. In I. Cushing & E. McMullin (Eds.), Philosophical consequences of quantum theory (pp. 208–223). Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Foundations of ScienceUniversity of UrbinoUrbinoItaly

Personalised recommendations