Metaphysica

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 1–26 | Cite as

Humean Supervenience in the Light of Contemporary Science

Original Paper

Abstract

It is shown that Lewis’ ontological doctrine of Humean supervenience incorporates at its foundation the so-called separability principle of classical physics. In view of the systematic violation of the latter within quantum mechanics, the claim that contemporary physical science may posit non-supervenient relations beyond the spatiotemporal ones is reinforced on a foundational basis concerning constraints on the state representation of physical systems. Depending on the mode of assignment of states to quantum systems — unit state vectors versus statistical density operators — we distinguish between strongly and weakly non-Humean, non-supervenient relations. It is demonstrated that in either case, the relations of quantum entanglement constitute prototypical examples of irreducible physical relations that do not supervene upon a spatiotemporal arrangement of Humean qualities, weakening, thereby, the thesis of Humean supervenience. In this respect, the status of Lewis’ recombination principle is examined, whereas his conception of lawhood is critically investigated. It is concluded that the assumption of ontological reductionism, as expressed in Lewis’ Humean doctrine, cannot be regarded as a reliable code of the nature of the physical world and its contents. It is proposed instead that due to the undeniable existence of non-supervenient relations, a metaphysic of relations of a moderate kind ought to be acknowledged as an indispensable part of our understanding of the natural world at a fundamental level.

Keywords

Humean supervenience Quantum entanglement Quantum holism Recombination principle Ontological reductionism Laws of nature 

References

  1. Armstrong D. M. (1983) What is a law of nature? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Aspect A, Grainger G, Roger G (1982) Experimental test of Bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers. Physical Review Letters 49: 1804–1807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blank J, Exner P, Havliček M (1994) Hilbert space operators in quantum physics. American Institute of Physics, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Butterfield J. (2006) Against pointillisme about mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57: 709–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butterfield J, Isham C (2001) Spacetime and the philosophical challenge of quantum gravity. In: Callender C, Huggett N (eds.) Physics meets philosophy at the Planck scale (pp. 38–89). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  6. Castellani E. (1999). Galilean particles: An example of constitution of objects. In: Castellani E. (ed.) Interpreting bodies (pp. 181–196). Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  7. Cleland C. (1984). Space: An abstract system of non-supervenient relations. Philosophical Studies 46: 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Einstein A (1948) Quantum mechanics and reality. In: Born M (ed.) The Born–Einstein letters (pp. 168–173). Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  9. Esfeld M (2004) Quantum entanglement and a metaphysics of relations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35: 601–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Everett H (1957) ‘Relative state’ formulation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics 29: 454–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. French S (1989) Individuality, supervenience and Bell’s theorem. Philosophical Studies 55: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. French S, Krause D (2006) Identity in physics: A historical, philosophical, and formal analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. Ghirardi C, Rimini A, Weber T (1986) Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Physical Review D 34: 470–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gisin N (1991) ‘Bell’s inequality holds for all non-product states. Physics Letters A 154: 201–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffiths R. B. (1984) Consistent histories and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Journal of Statistical Physics 36: 219–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Healey R (1991) Holism and nonseparability. Journal of Philosophy 88: 393–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heisenberg W (1974) Across the frontiers. Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Howard D (1989) Holism, separability and the metaphysical implications of the Bell experiments. In: Cushing J, McMullin E (eds.) Philosophical consequences of quantum theory: Reflections on Bell’s theorem (pp. 224–253). University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  19. Hughston L, Jozsa R., Wooters W (1993) A complete classification of quantum ensembles having a given density matrix. Physics Letters A 183: 14–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Humberstone L (1996) Intrinsic/extrinsic. Synthese 108: 205–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hume D (1748) An enquiry concerning human understanding. In: Selby-Bigge L. A (ed.) Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals (third edition revised by P. H. Nidditch, 1975). Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
  22. Joos E, Zeh H, Kiefer C, Giulini D, Kupsch J, Stamatescu I (2003) Decoherence and the appearance of a classical world in quantum theory (second edition). Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  23. Karakostas V (2007) Nonseparability, potentiality and the context-dependence of quantum objects. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 38: 279–297.Google Scholar
  24. Kim J (1993) Supervenience and mind: Selected philosophical essays. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Langton R, Lewis D (1998) Defining ‘intrinsic’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58: 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewis D (1973) Counterfactuals. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  27. Lewis D (1983) New work for a theory of universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61: 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewis D (1986a) Philosophical papers: Volume II. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Lewis D (1986b) On the plurality of worlds. Blackwell, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Lewis D (1994) Humean supervenience debugged. Mind 103: 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewis D (1999) Papers in metaphysics and epistemology. Cambridge University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lewis D (2001) Redefining ‘intrinsic’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63: 381–398.Google Scholar
  33. Lewis D (2004) How many lives has Schrödinger’s cat? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82: 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Loewer B (1996) Humean supervenience. Philosophical Topics 24: 101–127.Google Scholar
  35. Margenau H (1950) The nature of physical reality. McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  36. Maudlin T (2007) The metaphysics within physics. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Mermin D (1998) What is quantum mechanics trying to tell us? American Journal of Physics 66: 753–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Omnès R (1992) Consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics 64: 339–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oppy G (2000) Humean supervenience? Philosophical Studies 101: 77–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pearle P (1989) Combining stochastic dynamical state-vector reduction with spontaneous localization. Physical Review A 39: 2277–2289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Popescu S, Rohrlich D (1992) Which states violate Bell’s inequality maximally? Physics Letters A 169: 411–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Robinson D (1989) Matter, motion, and Humean supervenience. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 67: 394–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rovelli C (1996) Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 35: 1637–1678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Savellos E, Yalcin D (eds.) (1995) Supervenience: New essays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  45. Schrödinger E (1935) The present situation in quantum mechanics. Naturwissenschaften 22: 807–812, 823–828, 844–849. Reprinted in Wheeler J, Zurek W (eds.) Quantum theory and measurement (1983, pp. 152–167). Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  46. Shimony A (1993) Search for a naturalistic world view: Natural science and metaphysics (volume II). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  47. Teller P (1986) Relational holism and quantum mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37: 71–81.Google Scholar
  48. Teller P (1989) Relativity, relational holism, and the Bell inequalities. In: Cushing J, McMullin E (eds.) Philosophical consequences of quantum theory: Reflections on Bell’s theorem (pp. 208–223). University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  49. Tittel W, Brendel J, Zbinden H, Gisin N (1998) Violation of Bell inequalities by photons more than 10km apart. Physical Review Letters 81: 3563–3566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vallentyne P (1997) Intrinsic properties defined. Philosophical Studies 88: 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Fraasen B (1989) Laws and symmetry. Clarendon, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weatherson B (2002) Intrinsic and extrinsic properties. In: Zalta E (ed.) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, available at <http://plato.stanford.edu>.
  53. Witten E (1996) Reflections on the fate of spacetime. Physics Today 49: 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and History of ScienceUniversity of Athens, University CampusAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations