Summary
The present essay aims at broadening the recent discussion on the issue of holism vs. particularism in quantum physics. I begin with a clarification of the relation between the holism/particularism debate and the discussion of supervenience relation. I then defend particularism in physics (including quantum physics) by considering a new classification of properties of physical systems. With such a classification, the results in the Bell theorem are shown to violate spatial separability but not physical particularism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Teller, P.: 1989, “Relativity, Relational Holism, and the Bell Inequalities”, in [8], 208–23.
Howard, D.: 1989, “Holism, Separability, and the Metaphysical Implications of the Bell Experiments”, in [8], 224–53.
Healey, R.: 1991, “Holism and Nonseparability”,Journal of Philosophy 88: 393–421.
Lewis, D.: 1983, “New York for a Theory of Universals”,Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61: 343–77.
Kim, J.: 1984. “Concepts of Supervenience”,Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 45: 153–76.
Horgan, T.: 1982, “Supervenience and Microphysics”,Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 63: 29–42.
Jarret, D.: 1984, “On the Physical Significance of the Locality Conditions in the Bell Arguments”,Noûs 18: 569–89.
Cushing, J. T. & E. McMullin (eds.): 1989,Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory, Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, C. Holism vs. particularism: A lesson from classical and quantum physics. Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 27, 267–279 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02262617
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02262617