Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:25:51.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-seperability, Non-supervenience, and Quantum Ontology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Darrin W. Belousek
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An argument to the effect that quantum mechanics commits us to the existence of non-supervenient relations, and therefore that we should admit such relations into our quantum ontology as fundamental entities, has been given by Teller and reformulated by French. This paper aims, first, to explicate and evaluate that argument; second, to extend its premises in order to assess its relevance for other interpretations of quantum mechanics; and, third, to clarify its implications for holism and individuation in quantum ontology.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 70 , Issue 4 , October 2003 , pp. 791 - 811
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

The material of this paper is derived from my Ph.D. dissertation, “Ontological Commitments and Theory Appraisal in the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” (University of Notre Dame, 1998). Financial support for this work was provided by the John J. Reilly Center for Science, Technology and Values and the Zahm Research Travel Fund, University of Notre Dame. Initial research for this paper was conducted while a Visiting Scholar in the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Cambridge during the Lent term 1997. My thanks to Steven French, Michael Esfeld and Yuri Balashov for helpful and stimulating discussions concerning the subject of this paper. My thanks also to several anonymous referees of earlier drafts of this paper for their critical and insightful comments and suggestions for improving the paper.

References

Belousek, Darrin W. (1999), “Bell's Theorem, Non-Separability and Space-Time Individuation in Quantum Mechanics”, Bell's Theorem, Non-Separability and Space-Time Individuation in Quantum Mechanics 66 (Proceedings): S28–S46.Google Scholar
Belousek, Darrin W. (2000a), “Statistics, Symmetry, and the Conventionality of Indistinguishability in Quantum Mechanics”, Statistics, Symmetry, and the Conventionality of Indistinguishability in Quantum Mechanics 30:1–34.Google Scholar
Belousek, Darrin W. (2000b), “Statistics, Symmetry and (In)Distinguishability in Bohmian Mechanics”, Statistics, Symmetry and (In)Distinguishability in Bohmian Mechanics 30:153–164.Google Scholar
Belousek, Darrin W. (2003), “Formalism, Ontology, and Methodology in Bohmian Mechanics”, forthcoming in Foundations of Science.Google Scholar
Bohm, David, and Hiley, Basil J. (1993), The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butterfield, Jeremy (1993), “Interpretation and Identity in Quantum Theory”, Interpretation and Identity in Quantum Theory 24:443–476.Google Scholar
Cleland, C.E. (1984), “Space: An Abstract System of Non-Supervenient Relations”, Space: An Abstract System of Non-Supervenient Relations 46:19–40.Google Scholar
Cushing, James T., and McMullin, Ernan (eds.) (1989), Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell's Theorem. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Cushing, James T., Fine, Arthur, and Goldstein, Sheldon (eds.) (1996), Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewdney, Chris (1992), “Constraints on Quantum Hidden-Variables and the Bohm Theory”, Constraints on Quantum Hidden-Variables and the Bohm Theory A25:3615–3626.Google Scholar
Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., and Zanghi, N. (1996), “Bohmian Mechanics as the Foundation of Quantum Mechanics”, in Cushing et al., 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, Steven (1989), “Individuality, Supervenience and Bell's Theorem”, Individuality, Supervenience and Bell's Theorem 55:1–22.Google Scholar
French, Steven, and Redhead, Michael (1988), “Quantum Physics and the Identity of Indiscernibles”, Quantum Physics and the Identity of Indiscernibles 39:233–246.Google Scholar
Healey, Richard (1990), “Holism and Nonseparability”, Holism and Nonseparability 88:393–421.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas (1905), “Elements of Philosophy Concerning Body”, in Metaphysical Writings. Lasalle, IL: Open Court, 1–154.Google Scholar
Holland, Peter R. (1993), The Quantum Theory of Motion: An Account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Don (1989), “Holism, Separability, and the Metaphysical Implications of the Bell Experiments”, in Cushing and McMullin, 224–253.Google Scholar
Huang, Kerson (1987), Statistical Mechanics, 2d. ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Krane, Kenneth S. (1988), Introductory Nuclear Physics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Teller, Paul (1986), “Relational Holism and Quantum Mechanics”, Relational Holism and Quantum Mechanics 37:71–81.Google Scholar
Teller, Paul (1989), “Relativity, Relational Holism, and the Bell Inequalities”, in Cushing and McMullin, 208–223.Google Scholar
Teller, Paul (1995), An Interpretive Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Valentini, Antony (1996), “Pilot-Wave Theory of Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology”, in Cushing et al., 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar