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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Wheeler was a student of Niels Bohr and a close colleague of Albert Einstein; his work stands at a confluence between Einstein's Spinozan inclination to view the world sub specie aeternitatis and Bohr's emphasis, following Ernst Mach, on physical observables as the only reality that can be discussed.
This is known among physicists as the “shut up and calculate” approach to quantum theory (Mermin 1989).
A possible example of the former can be found in de Boer and Fields (2011).
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.
Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics, 1, 195–200.
Bičák, J. (2009). The art of science: interview with Professor John Archibald Wheeler. General Relativity and Gravitation, 41, 679–689.
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.
Bohr, N. (1928). The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory. Nature, 121, 580–590.
Cartwright, N. (1999). The dappled world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Dennett, D. (1971). Intentional systems. Journal of Philosophy, 68, 87–106.
Deutsch, D. (2010). A part from universes. In Saunders et al. (2010), pp. 542–552.
Everett, H., III. (1957). 'Relative state' formulation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29, 454–462.
Fields, C. (2010). Quantum Darwinism requires an extra-theoretical assumption of encoding redundancy. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 49, 2523–2527.
Fields, C. (2011). Classical system boundaries cannot be determined within quantum Darwinism. Physics Essays, 24, 518–522.
Fields, C. (2012a). Autonomy all the way down: Systems and dynamics in quantum Bayesianism. Physics & Philosophy 2012.
Fields, C. (2012b). A model-theoretic interpretation of environment-induced superselection. International Journal of General Systems, 41, 847–859.
Fields, C. (2012c). Implementation of classical communication in a quantum world. Information, 3, 809–831.
Fields, C. (2013). Consistent quantum mechanics admits no mereotopology. Axiomathes (in press). DOI: 10.1007/s10516-012-9202-3.
Floridi, L. (2008). A defense of informational structural realism. Synthese, 161, 219–253.
Fuchs, C. (2010). QBism: The perimeter of quantum Bayesianism. Preprint arXiv:1003.5209v1 [quant-ph].
Halvorson, H., & Clifton, R. (2002). No place for particles in relativistic quantum theories? Philosophy of Science, 69, 1–28.
Hartle, J. (2010). Quasiclassical realms. In Saunders et al. (2010), pp. 73–98.
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.
Kochen, S., & Specker, E. P. (1967). The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17, 59–87.
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.
Mermin, N. D. (1981). Quantum mysteries for anyone. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 397–408.
Mermin, N. D. (1989). What's wrong with this pillow? Physics Today, 42(4), 9.
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.
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.
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].
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.
Saunders, S., Barrett, J., Kent, A., & Wallace, D. (2010). Many worlds? Everett, quantum theory and reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schaffer, J. (2009). Spacetime the one substance. Philosophical Studies, 145, 131–148.
Schaffer, J. (2010). Monism: the priority of the whole. Philosophical Review, 119, 31–76.
Schlosshauer, M. (2006). Experimental motivation and empirical consistency of minimal no-collapse quantum mechanics. Annals of Physics, 321, 112–149.
Schlosshauer, M. (2007). Decoherence and the quantum to classical transition. Berlin: Springer.
Schlosshauer, M. (2011). Elegance and enigma: the quantum interviews. Berlin: Springer.
Smith, B. (1996). Mereotopology: a theory of parts and boundaries. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 20, 287–303.
Tegmark, M. (2008). The mathematical universe. Foundations of Physics, 38, 101–150.
Tegmark, M. (2010). Many worlds in context. In Saunders et al. (2010), pp. 553–581.
von Neumann, J. (1932). Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Berlin: Springer.
Wallace, D. (2008). Philosophy of quantum mechanics. In D. Rickles (Ed.), The aldershot companion to contemporary philosophy of physics (pp. 16–98). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Wallace, D. (2010). Decoherence and ontology. In Saunders et al. (2010), pp. 53–72.
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.
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.
Wigner, E. P. (1960). The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 13, 1–14.
Zeh, D. (1970). On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory. Foundations of Physics, 1, 69–76.
Zeh, D. (2000). The problem of conscious observation in quantum mechanical description. Foundations of Physics Letters, 13, 221–233.
Zurek, W. H. (1998). Decoherence, einselection and the existential interpretation (the rough guide). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 356, 1793–1821.
Zurek, W. H. (2002). Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical – revisited. Los Alamos Science, 27, 1–24.
Zurek, W. H. (2003). Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75, 715–775.
Zurek, W. H. (2009). Quantum Darwinism. Nature Physics, 5, 181–188.
About this article
Cite this article
Fields, C. A Physics-Based Metaphysics is a Metaphysics-Based Metaphysics. Acta Anal 29, 131–148 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-013-0204-6
- Quantum entanglement
- Quantum field theory