Anti-foundationalist Coherentism as an Ontology for Relational Quantum Mechanics

IF 1.2 3区 物理与天体物理 Q3 PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Emma Jaura
{"title":"Anti-foundationalist Coherentism as an Ontology for Relational Quantum Mechanics","authors":"Emma Jaura","doi":"10.1007/s10701-024-00794-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>There have been a number of recent attempts to identify the best metaphysical framework for capturing Rovelli’s Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM). All such accounts commit to some form of fundamentalia, whether they be traditional objects, physical relations, events or ‘flashes’, or the cosmos as a fundamental whole. However, Rovelli’s own recommendation is that ‘a natural philosophical home for RQM is an anti-foundationalist perspective' (Rovelli in Philos Trans R Soc 376:10, 2018). This gives us some prima facie reason to explore options beyond these foundationalist frameworks, and take seriously a picture that lacks fundamentalia. I construct an argument from elimination in favour of an anti-foundationalist interpretation of RQM. The argument notes that <i>priority monism</i> and <i>priority pluralism</i> are exhaustive foundationalist options, and then shows that there are reasons to reject their union with RQM. I finish by recommending <i>metaphysical coherentism</i> as a promising anti-foundationalist alternative, which captures the key characteristics of RQM through accepting symmetrical dependence, whilst avoiding challenges by jettisoning any commitment to fundamental entities.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":569,"journal":{"name":"Foundations of Physics","volume":"54 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10701-024-00794-2.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foundations of Physics","FirstCategoryId":"101","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-024-00794-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There have been a number of recent attempts to identify the best metaphysical framework for capturing Rovelli’s Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM). All such accounts commit to some form of fundamentalia, whether they be traditional objects, physical relations, events or ‘flashes’, or the cosmos as a fundamental whole. However, Rovelli’s own recommendation is that ‘a natural philosophical home for RQM is an anti-foundationalist perspective' (Rovelli in Philos Trans R Soc 376:10, 2018). This gives us some prima facie reason to explore options beyond these foundationalist frameworks, and take seriously a picture that lacks fundamentalia. I construct an argument from elimination in favour of an anti-foundationalist interpretation of RQM. The argument notes that priority monism and priority pluralism are exhaustive foundationalist options, and then shows that there are reasons to reject their union with RQM. I finish by recommending metaphysical coherentism as a promising anti-foundationalist alternative, which captures the key characteristics of RQM through accepting symmetrical dependence, whilst avoiding challenges by jettisoning any commitment to fundamental entities.

Abstract Image

作为关系量子力学本体论的反基础主义相干论
最近有许多人试图找出捕捉罗韦利关系量子力学(RQM)的最佳形而上学框架。所有这些论述都致力于某种形式的基本原理,无论是传统的物体、物理关系、事件或 "闪光",还是作为基本整体的宇宙。然而,罗韦利自己的建议是,"RQM 的自然哲学归宿是反基础主义视角"(罗韦利在 Philos Trans R Soc 376:10, 2018)。这给了我们一些初步理由来探索这些基础主义框架之外的选择,并认真对待缺乏基础性的图景。我构建了一个排除论证,支持对RQM的反基础主义解释。该论证指出,优先权一元论和优先权多元论是详尽无遗的基础主义选择,然后表明有理由拒绝它们与 RQM 的结合。最后,我推荐形而上学一致性主义作为一种有前途的反基础主义替代方案,它通过接受对称依赖性抓住了 RQM 的关键特征,同时通过放弃对基本实体的任何承诺避免了挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Foundations of Physics
Foundations of Physics 物理-物理:综合
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
104
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The conceptual foundations of physics have been under constant revision from the outset, and remain so today. Discussion of foundational issues has always been a major source of progress in science, on a par with empirical knowledge and mathematics. Examples include the debates on the nature of space and time involving Newton and later Einstein; on the nature of heat and of energy; on irreversibility and probability due to Boltzmann; on the nature of matter and observation measurement during the early days of quantum theory; on the meaning of renormalisation, and many others. Today, insightful reflection on the conceptual structure utilised in our efforts to understand the physical world is of particular value, given the serious unsolved problems that are likely to demand, once again, modifications of the grammar of our scientific description of the physical world. The quantum properties of gravity, the nature of measurement in quantum mechanics, the primary source of irreversibility, the role of information in physics – all these are examples of questions about which science is still confused and whose solution may well demand more than skilled mathematics and new experiments. Foundations of Physics is a privileged forum for discussing such foundational issues, open to physicists, cosmologists, philosophers and mathematicians. It is devoted to the conceptual bases of the fundamental theories of physics and cosmology, to their logical, methodological, and philosophical premises. The journal welcomes papers on issues such as the foundations of special and general relativity, quantum theory, classical and quantum field theory, quantum gravity, unified theories, thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, cosmology, and similar.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信