Advertisement

From ontic structural realism to metaphysical coherentism

  • Matteo MorgantiEmail author
Paper in Philosophy of the Natural Sciences

Abstract

The present paper argues that the typical structuralist claims according to which invariances, symmetries and the like are fundamental – especially in physics – should not be understood in terms of physical relations being fundamental. Rather, they should be understood in terms of ‘metaphysical coherentism’ - the idea that object-like parts of reality exhibit symmetric relations of ontological dependence. The view is developed in some detail, in particular by showing that i) symmetric ontological dependence does not necessarily lead to uninformative metaphysical explanations, and ii) metaphysical coherentism strikes the best balance between the requirements of naturalism and those of theoretical consistency – especially in view of the difficulties that structuralists seem to have in accounting for all state-independent properties of particles in relational terms. On this basis, the coherentist picture is applied to the interpretation of the quantum domain, and contrasted with extant varieties of structuralism, of both the eliminative and the non-eliminative sort, and holism.

Keywords

Structuralism Ontic structural realism Objects Relations Coherentism Ontological dependence Symmetric dependence Quantum mechanics Entanglement 

References

  1. Ainsworth, P. (2011). Ontic structural realism and the principle of the identity of indiscernibles. Erkenntnis, 75, 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Calosi, C., & Morganti, M. (forthcoming). Interpreting quantum entanglement: steps towards coherentist quantum mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Google Scholar
  3. Castellani, E. (1998). Galilean particles: an example of constitution of objects. In E. Castellani (Ed.), Interpreting bodies (pp. 181–194). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Caulton, A. (2015). Is mereology empirical? Composition for fermions. In C. Wüthrich & T. Bigaj (Eds.), Metaphysics in contemporary physics (pp. 293–321). Rodopi: Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities.Google Scholar
  5. Clifton, R., & Halvorson, H. (2001). Entanglement and open systems in algebraic quantum field theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 32, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Correia, F. (2014). Logical grounds. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 7, 31–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dorato, M. (2000). Substantivalism. Relationism, and Structural Spacetime Realism, Foundations of Physics, 30, 1605–1628.Google Scholar
  8. Dorato, M., & Pauri, M. (2006). Holism and structuralism in classical and quantum GR. In D. Rickles, S. French, & J. Saatsi (Eds.), The structural foundations of quantum gravity (pp. 121–151). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Earman, J. (2015). Some puzzles and unresolved issues about quantum entanglement. Erkenntnis, 80, 303–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Esfeld, M. (2004). Quantum entanglement and a metaphysics of relations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35, 601–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Esfeld, M., & Lam, V. (2006). Moderate structural realism about space-time. Synthese, 160, 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Esfeld, M., & Lam, V. (2011). Ontic structural realism as a metaphysics of objects. In A. Bokulich & P. Bokulich (Eds.), Scientific structuralism (pp. 143–159). Berlin: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  13. Esfeld, M., Deckert, D.-A., & Oldofredi, A. (forthcoming). What is matter? The fundamental ontology of atomism and structural realism. In A. Ijjas & B. Loewer (Eds.), A guide to the philosophy of cosmology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fine, K. (1995). Ontological dependence. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 95, 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. French, S. (2010). The interdependence of structure, objects and dependence. Synthese, 175, 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. French, S. (2013). Unitary inequivalence as a problem for structural realism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 43, 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. French, S. (2014). The structure of the world: metaphysics and representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glick, D. (2016). The ontology of quantum field theory: structural realism vindicated? Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 59, 78–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Healey, R. (2013). Physical composition. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44, 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ismael, J., & Schaffer, J. (forthcoming). Quantum holism: nonseparability as common ground. Synthese, Google Scholar
  21. Jenkins, C. S. (2011). Is metaphysical dependence irreflexive? The Monist, 94, 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ladyman, J. (1998). What is structural realism? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 29, 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ladyman, J. (2007). On the identity and diversity of objects in a structure. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 81, 23–43.Google Scholar
  24. Ladyman, J., & Ross, D., (with Spurrett, D., & Collier, J.) (2007). Every thing must go. Metaphysics Naturalised. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lam, V. (2013). The entanglement structure of quantum field systems. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 27, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Linnebo, Ø. (2008). Structuralism and the notion of dependence. The Philosophical Quarterly, 58(230), 59–79.Google Scholar
  27. Lowe, E. J. (2003). Individuation. In M. J. Loux & D. W. Zimmerman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of metaphysics (pp. 75–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lyre, H. (2004). Holism and structuralism in U(1) gauge theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35, 643–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McKenzie, K. (forthcoming). Structuralism in the idiom of determination. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
  30. McKenzie, K. (2014). Priority and particle physics: ontic structural realism as a fundamentality thesis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 65, 353–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mertz, D. W. (2001). Individuation and instance ontology. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 79, 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mittelstaedt, P. (1995). The constitution of objects in classical mechanics and in quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 34, 1615–1626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morganti, M. (2009). Inherent properties and statistics with individual particles in quantum mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 40, 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Muller, F. A. (2009). Withering away. Weakly, Synthese, 180, 223–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Muller, F. A. (2011). How to defeat Wüthrich's abysmal embarrassment argument against space-time structuralism. Philosophy of Science, 78, 1046–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Muller, F. A. (2015). The rise of relationals. Mind, 124, 201–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Conaill, D. (2014). Ontic structural realism and concrete objects. The Philosophical Quarterly, 64, 284–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roberts, B. W. (2011). Group structural realism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62, 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sen, A. (1969). Quasi-transitivity. Rational Choice and Collective Decisions, Review of Economic Studies, 36, 381–393.Google Scholar
  40. Stachel, J. (2002). The relations between things' versus 'the things between relations': the deeper meaning of the hole argument. In D. Malament (Ed.), Reading natural philosophy: essays in the history and philosophy of science and mathematics (pp. 231–266). Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  41. Teller, P. (1986). Relational holism and quantum mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 37, 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Valente, G. (2013). Local disentanglement in relativistic quantum field theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44, 424–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Varadarayan, V. S. (1985). Geometry of quantum theory. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Wolff, J. (2012). Do objects depend on structures? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63, 607–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wüthrich, C. (2009). Challenging the space-time structuralist. Philosophy of Science, 76, 1039–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Filosofia, Comunicazione e SpettacoloUniversità di Roma TRERomeItaly

Personalised recommendations