A pragmatist view of the metaphysics of entanglement
Quantum entanglement is widely believed to be a feature of physical reality with undoubted (though debated) metaphysical implications. But Schrödinger introduced entanglement as a theoretical relation between representatives of the quantum states of two systems. Entanglement represents a physical relation only if quantum states are elements of physical reality. So arguments for metaphysical holism or nonseparability from entanglement rest on a questionable view of quantum theory. Assignment of entangled quantum states predicts experimentally confirmed violation of Bell inequalities. Can one use these experimental results to argue directly for metaphysical conclusions? No. Quantum theory itself gives us our best explanation of violations of Bell inequalities, with no superluminal causal influences and no metaphysical holism or nonseparability—but only if quantum states are understood as objective and relational, though prescriptive rather than ontic. Correct quantum state assignments are backed by true physical magnitude claims: but backing is not grounding. Quantum theory supports no general metaphysical holism or nonseparability; though a claim about a compound physical system may be significant and true while similar claims about its components are neither. Entanglement may well have have few, if any, first-order metaphysical implications. But the quantum theory of entanglement has much to teach the metaphysician about the roles of chance, causation, modality and explanation in the epistemic and practical concerns of a physically situated agent.
KeywordsEntanglement Metaphysical holism Quantum theory Quantum state Chance Causation Nonseparability
This paper benefited from discussions with Jenann Ismael and David Glick and helpful suggestions from two reviewers. I thank the Yetadel Foundation for support during the time it was written.
- Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics, 1, 447–452.Google Scholar
- Bohr, N. (1958). Unity of knowledge. Reprinted in The philosophical writings of Niels Bohr volume II. Woodbridge, Connecticut: Ox Bow Press.Google Scholar
- Caulton, A. (2014) Physical entanglement in permutation–invariant quantum mechanics. arXiv:1409.0246v1 [quant-ph] 31 Aug.
- Dirac, P. A. M. (1930). The principles of quantum mechanics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Einstein, A. (1949). Autobiographical notes; Reply to Criticisms. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-scientist. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
- Fine, A. (1986). The shaky game. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Fine, A. (2014). The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen argument. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/qt-epr/.
- Gleason, A. M. (1957). Measures on the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 6, 885–893.Google Scholar
- Healey, R. (2009). Holism and nonseparabiity in physics. In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/physics-holism/.
- Healey, R. (2016). Local causality, probability and explanation. In M. Bell & S. Gao (Eds.), Quantum nonlocality and reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Holism, Howard D. (1989). Separability and the metaphysical implications of the Bell experiments. In J. Cushing & E. McMullin (Eds.), Philosophical consequences of quantum theory: Reflections on Bell’s theorem (pp. 224–253). Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
- Ismael, J. & Schaffer, J. (2016). Quantum holism: Nonseparability as common ground. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-016-1201-2.
- Kochen, S., & Specker, E. P. (1967). The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17, 59–87.Google Scholar
- Lévy–Leblond, J.-M. (1990). In K. V. Laurikainen & J. Viiri (Eds.) Discussion Sections of the Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics 1990. University of Turku.Google Scholar
- Lewis, D. K. (1980). A subjectivist’s guide to objective chance. In R. C. Jeffrey (Ed.), Studies in inductive logic and probability, Volume II. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Lewis, D. K. (1986). Causal explanation. In Philosophical papers (Vol. II, pp. 214–240). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Peirce, C. S. (1878). How to make our ideas clear. The Popular Science Monthly, 12, 286–302.Google Scholar
- Price, H. (1996). Time’s arrow and Archimedes’ point. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Price, H. (2011). Naturalism without mirrors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Schrödinger, E. (1935). Discussion of probability relations between separated systems. In Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (Vol. 31, pp. 63–555).Google Scholar
- Schrödinger, E. (1935). Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik. In Die Naturwissenschaften 48, 807–812; 49, 823–8; 50, 844–849.Google Scholar
- Schrödinger, E. (1936). Probability relations between separated systems. In Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (Vol. 32, pp. 446–452).Google Scholar
- Von Neumann, J. (1932). Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Wheeler, J. A., & Zurek, W. H. (Eds.). (1983). Quantum theory and measurement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar