pp 1–14 | Cite as

Quantum metaphysical indeterminacy and worldly incompleteness

  • Alessandro TorzaEmail author
S.I. The Metaphysics of Entanglement


An influential theory has it that metaphysical indeterminacy occurs just when reality can be made completely precise in multiple ways. That characterization is formulated by employing the modal apparatus of ersatz possible worlds. As quantum physics taught us, reality cannot be made completely precise. I meet the challenge by providing an alternative theory which preserves the use of ersatz worlds but rejects the precisificational view of metaphysical indeterminacy. The upshot of the proposed theory is that it is metaphysically indeterminate whether p just in case it is neither true nor false that p, and no terms in ‘p’ are semantically defective. In other words, metaphysical indeterminacy arises when the world cannot be adequately described by a complete set of sentences defined in a semantically nondefective language. Moreover, the present theory provides a reductive analysis of metaphysical indeterminacy, unlike its influential predecessor. Finally, I argue that any adequate logic of a language with an indeterminate subject matter is neither compositional nor bivalent.


Ersatz world Ersatzism Superposition Quantum mechanics Quantum physics Nonclassical logic Compositionality Bivalence Semantic completeness Supervaluationism Metaphysical indeterminacy Possible worlds Impossible worlds 



I would like to express my gratitude to Axel Barceló, Aldo Filomeno, Eduardo García-Ramírez, John Horden, Ricardo Mena, Elias Okon and Jessica Wilson for helpful and constructive feedback on previous versions of this paper. I also would like to thank the audience of the workshops Logical Space. Logical and metaphysical issues and Philosophical Aspects of Modality, which took place at the Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAM, in September 2016. This work was supported by the PAPIIT Grant IA400316.


  1. Akiba, K. (2000). Vagueness as a modality. Philosophical Quarterly, 50, 359–370.Google Scholar
  2. Akiba, K. (2004). Vagueness in the world. Noûs, 38, 407–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akiba, K. (2015). How Barnes and Williams have failed to present an intelligible ontic theory of vagueness. Analysis, 75(4), 565–573.Google Scholar
  4. Albert, D. Z. (2009). Quantum mechanics and experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barnes, E. (2010). Ontic vagueness: A guide for the perplexed. Noûs, 44(4), 601–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnes, E., & Cameron, R. (2009). The open future: Bivalence, determinism and ontology. Philosophical Studies, 146, 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnes, E., & Williams, J. R. G. (2011). A theory of metaphysical indeterminacy. In D. Zimmerman & K. Bennett (Eds.), Oxford studies in metaphysics (pp. 103–148). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berto, F. (2010). Impossible worlds and propositions: Against the parity thesis. The Philosophical Quarterly, 40, 471–486.Google Scholar
  9. Birkhoff, G., & von Neumann, J. (1936). The logic of quantum mechanics. Annals of Mathematics, 37, 823–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bokulich, A. (2014). Metaphysical indeterminacy, properties, and quantum theory. Res Philosophica, 91(3), 449–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brogaard, B., & Salerno, J. (2013). Remarks on counterpossibles. Synthese, 190, 639–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Correia, F. (2007). (Finean) Essence and (Priorean) modality. Dialectica, 61(1), 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Darby, G. (2010). Quantum mechanics and metaphysical indeterminacy. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 88(2), 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dickmann, M. A. (1975). Large infinitary languages: Model theory (Vol. 83). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  15. Evans, G. (1978). Can there be vague objects? Analysis, 38, 208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fine, K. (1975). Vagueness, truth and logic. Synthese, 54, 235–259.Google Scholar
  17. Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Lowe, E. J. (1994). Vague identity and quantum indeterminacy. Analysis, 54(2), 110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lowe, E. J. (1999). Vague identity and quantum indeterminacy: Further reflections. Analysis, 59(264), 328–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nolan, D. (1997). Impossible worlds: A modest approach. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 38, 535–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nolt, J. (2006). Free logics. In D. Jacquette (Ed.), Philosophy of logic: Handbook of the philosophy of science. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  22. Putnam, H. (Ed.). (1979). Philosophical papers, volume 1: Mathematics, matter, and method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Skow, B. (2010). Deep metaphysical indeterminacy. The Philosophical Quarterly, 60(241), 851–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vander Laan, D. (1997). The ontology of impossible worlds. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 38, 597–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Williams, J. R. G. (2008). Ontic vagueness and metaphysical indeterminacy. Philosophy Compass, 3(4), 763–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Williams, J. R. G. (2008). Multiple actualities and ontically vague identity. The Philosophical Quarterly, 58(230), 134–154.Google Scholar
  27. Wilson, J. (2013). A determinable-based account of metaphysical indeterminacy. Inquiry, 56(4), 359–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilson, J. (forthcoming). Are there indeterminate states of affairs? Yes. In Barnes, E. (ed.) Current controversies in metaphysics. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  29. Yagisawa, T. (1988). Beyond possible worlds. Philosophical Studies, 53, 175–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Investigaciones FilosóficasUNAMMexicoMexico

Personalised recommendations