Acta Analytica

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 131–148 | Cite as

A Physics-Based Metaphysics is a Metaphysics-Based Metaphysics

Article

Abstract

The common practice of advancing arguments based on current physics in support of metaphysical conclusions has been criticized on the grounds that current physics may well be wrong. A further criticism is leveled here: current physics itself depends on metaphysical assumptions, so arguing from current physics is in fact arguing from yet more metaphysics. It is shown that the metaphysical assumptions underlying current physics are often deeply embedded in the formalism in which theories are presented, and hence impossible to dismiss as mere motivational or interpretative speculation. It is then shown that such assumptions, when made explicit, can wreck havoc on otherwise-sensible philosophical arguments. It is argued in conclusion that this situation is both unlikely to be reparable just by being more careful, and unlikely to go away as further, presumably more subtle physical theories are developed.

Keywords

Monism Pluralism Substantivalism Mereology Quantum entanglement Quantum field theory 

References

  1. Adam, T. et al. (OPERA Collaboration) (2012). Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam. Journal of High-Energy Physics, 10, 093. 37 pages.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics, 1, 195–200.Google Scholar
  3. Bičák, J. (2009). The art of science: interview with Professor John Archibald Wheeler. General Relativity and Gravitation, 41, 679–689.Google Scholar
  4. Blume-Kohout, R., & Zurek, W. H. (2006). Quantum Darwinism: entanglement, branches, and the emergent classicality of redundantly stored quantum information. Physical Review A, 73, 062310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohr, N. (1928). The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory. Nature, 121, 580–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cartwright, N. (1999). The dappled world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Boer, F. W. N., & Fields, C. (2011). A re-evaluation of evidence for light neutral bosons in nuclear emulsions. International Journal of Modern Physics E: Nuclear Physics, 20, 1787–1803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dennett, D. (1971). Intentional systems. Journal of Philosophy, 68, 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deutsch, D. (2010). A part from universes. In Saunders et al. (2010), pp. 542–552.Google Scholar
  10. Everett, H., III. (1957). 'Relative state' formulation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29, 454–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fields, C. (2010). Quantum Darwinism requires an extra-theoretical assumption of encoding redundancy. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 49, 2523–2527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fields, C. (2011). Classical system boundaries cannot be determined within quantum Darwinism. Physics Essays, 24, 518–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fields, C. (2012a). Autonomy all the way down: Systems and dynamics in quantum Bayesianism. Physics & Philosophy 2012.Google Scholar
  14. Fields, C. (2012b). A model-theoretic interpretation of environment-induced superselection. International Journal of General Systems, 41, 847–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fields, C. (2012c). Implementation of classical communication in a quantum world. Information, 3, 809–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fields, C. (2013). Consistent quantum mechanics admits no mereotopology. Axiomathes (in press). DOI: 10.1007/s10516-012-9202-3.
  17. Floridi, L. (2008). A defense of informational structural realism. Synthese, 161, 219–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuchs, C. (2010). QBism: The perimeter of quantum Bayesianism. Preprint arXiv:1003.5209v1 [quant-ph].Google Scholar
  19. Halvorson, H., & Clifton, R. (2002). No place for particles in relativistic quantum theories? Philosophy of Science, 69, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hartle, J. (2010). Quasiclassical realms. In Saunders et al. (2010), pp. 73–98.Google Scholar
  21. Joos, E., Zeh, D., Kiefer, C., Giulini, D., Kupsch, J., & Stamatescu, I.-O. (2003). Decoherence and the appearance of a classical world in quantum theory (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kochen, S., & Specker, E. P. (1967). The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17, 59–87.Google Scholar
  23. Landsman, N. P. (2007). Between classical and quantum. In J. Butterfield & J. Earman (Eds.), Handbook of the philosophy of science: philosophy of physics (pp. 417–553). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  24. Mermin, N. D. (1981). Quantum mysteries for anyone. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mermin, N. D. (1989). What's wrong with this pillow? Physics Today, 42(4), 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Monton, B. (2011). Prolegomena to any future physics-based metaphysics. In J. L. Kvanvig (Ed.), Oxford studies in philosophy of religion III (pp. 142–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Ollivier, H., Poulin, D., & Zurek, W. H. (2004). Objective properties from subjective quantum states: environment as a witness. Physical Review Letters, 93, 220401. 5 pages.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ollivier, H., Poulin, D., & Zurek, W. H. (2005). Environment as a witness: Selective proliferation of information and emergence of objectivity in a quantum universe. Physical Review A, 72, 042113 [21 pages].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Patton, C. M., & Wheeler, J. A. (1975). Is physics legislated by cosmogony? In C. J. Isham, R. Penrose, & D. W. Sciama (Eds.), Quantum gravity (pp. 538–605). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  30. Saunders, S., Barrett, J., Kent, A., & Wallace, D. (2010). Many worlds? Everett, quantum theory and reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Schaffer, J. (2009). Spacetime the one substance. Philosophical Studies, 145, 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schaffer, J. (2010). Monism: the priority of the whole. Philosophical Review, 119, 31–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schlosshauer, M. (2006). Experimental motivation and empirical consistency of minimal no-collapse quantum mechanics. Annals of Physics, 321, 112–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schlosshauer, M. (2007). Decoherence and the quantum to classical transition. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Schlosshauer, M. (2011). Elegance and enigma: the quantum interviews. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith, B. (1996). Mereotopology: a theory of parts and boundaries. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 20, 287–303.Google Scholar
  37. Tegmark, M. (2008). The mathematical universe. Foundations of Physics, 38, 101–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tegmark, M. (2010). Many worlds in context. In Saunders et al. (2010), pp. 553–581.Google Scholar
  39. von Neumann, J. (1932). Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Wallace, D. (2008). Philosophy of quantum mechanics. In D. Rickles (Ed.), The aldershot companion to contemporary philosophy of physics (pp. 16–98). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  41. Wallace, D. (2010). Decoherence and ontology. In Saunders et al. (2010), pp. 53–72.Google Scholar
  42. Wheeler, J. A. (1989). Information, physics, quantum: the search for links. In W. Zurek (Ed.), Complexity, entropy and the physics of information (pp. 3–28). New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  43. Wheeler, J. A. (1992). Recent thinking about the nature of the physical world: It from bit. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 655, 349–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wigner, E. P. (1960). The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 13, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zeh, D. (1970). On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory. Foundations of Physics, 1, 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zeh, D. (2000). The problem of conscious observation in quantum mechanical description. Foundations of Physics Letters, 13, 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zurek, W. H. (1998). Decoherence, einselection and the existential interpretation (the rough guide). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 356, 1793–1821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zurek, W. H. (2002). Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical – revisited. Los Alamos Science, 27, 1–24.Google Scholar
  49. Zurek, W. H. (2003). Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75, 715–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zurek, W. H. (2009). Quantum Darwinism. Nature Physics, 5, 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SonomaUSA

Personalised recommendations