Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2104.13859 · Synthese Library/Synthese library

Beables, Primitive Ontology and Beyond: How Theories Meet the World

Andréa Oldofredi

Published Jan 1, 2022• 7 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1007/978-3-030-99642-0_7

Related papers

The Point of Primitive Ontology

Dustin Lazarovici, Paula Reichert

arXiv:2211.08325•Foundations of Physics•Nov 9, 2022•4 citations

Primitive Beables Are Not Local Ontology: On the Relation between Primitive Ontology and Local Beables

Valia Allori

When discussing quantum ontology, the debate has recently focused on comparing and contrasting wavefunction realism and its rivals. Among them one finds the primitive ontology approach, which is often conflated with the local beables program. In this paper I wish to clarify what I take to be the distinction between the notion of primitive ontology and the one of local beable. I argue that the primitive ontology is the local beable which allows for a dynamical, constructive explanation which preserves symmetries.

Crítica (México D F En línea)•Oct 20, 2021•9 citations

A Puzzle for the Field Ontologists

Shan Gao

•Oct 31, 2020•10 citations

The Evolution of the Bell Notion of Beable: From Bohr to Primitive Ontology

Federico Laudisa

Abstract John S. Bell introduced the notion of beable, as opposed to the standard notion of observable, in order to emphasize the need for an unambiguous formulation of quantum mechanics. In the paper I show that Bell formulated in fact two different theories of beables. The first is somehow reminiscent of the Bohr views on quantum mechanics but, at the same time, is curiously adopted by Bell as a critical tool against the Copenhagen interpretation, whereas the second, more mature formulation was among the sources of inspiration of the so-called Primitive Ontology (PO) approach to quantum mechanics, an approach inspired to scientific realism. In the first part of the paper it is argued that, contrary to the Bell wishes, the first formulation of the theory fails to be an effective recipe for addressing the ambiguity underlying the standard formulation of quantum mechanics, whereas it is only the second formulation that successfully paves the way to the PO approach. In the second part, I consider how the distinction between the two formulations of the Bell theory of beables fares vis-a-vis the complex relationship between the theory of beables and the details of the PO approach.

arXiv:2305.16194•Journal for General Philosophy of Science•Jun 25, 2024•1 citation

Must an Ontology for Quantum Theories Contain Local Beables?

Alyssa Ney

Abstract This chapter considers and responds to the objection that a wave function in a high-dimensional space cannot ultimately constitute the low-dimensional macroscopic objects of experience. It discusses two forms this objection takes: one based on the putative fact that our evidence for quantum theories consists of low-dimensional objects, and another based on the putative fact that quantum theories are about low-dimensional objects, that they have primitive ontologies of local beables. Even admitting that there may be something straightforward and comprehensible about the fundamental ontologies for quantum theories proposed by the wave function realist, the philosophers who raise these objections see a problem with these ontologies in that they cannot serve as the constitutive foundation for the world as we experience it. And this undermines the promise of wave function realism to serve as a framework for the interpretation of quantum theories.

•May 19, 2021•1 citation

A Puzzle for the Field Ontologists

Shan Gao

arXiv:2011.01532•Foundations of Physics•Oct 31, 2020•8 citations
When discussing quantum ontology, the debate has recently focused on comparing and contrasting wavefunction realism and its rivals. Among them one finds the primitive ontology approach, which is often conflated with the local beables program. In this paper I wish to clarify what I take to be the distinction between the notion of primitive ontology and the one of local beable. I argue that the primitive ontology is the local beable which allows for a dynamical, constructive explanation which preserves symmetries.
Abstract John S. Bell introduced the notion of beable, as opposed to the standard notion of observable, in order to emphasize the need for an unambiguous formulation of quantum mechanics. In the paper I show that Bell formulated in fact two different theories of beables. The first is somehow reminiscent of the Bohr views on quantum mechanics but, at the same time, is curiously adopted by Bell as a critical tool against the Copenhagen interpretation, whereas the second, more mature formulation was among the sources of inspiration of the so-called Primitive Ontology (PO) approach to quantum mechanics, an approach inspired to scientific realism. In the first part of the paper it is argued that, contrary to the Bell wishes, the first formulation of the theory fails to be an effective recipe for addressing the ambiguity underlying the standard formulation of quantum mechanics, whereas it is only the second formulation that successfully paves the way to the PO approach. In the second part, I consider how the distinction between the two formulations of the Bell theory of beables fares vis-a-vis the complex relationship between the theory of beables and the details of the PO approach.
Abstract This chapter considers and responds to the objection that a wave function in a high-dimensional space cannot ultimately constitute the low-dimensional macroscopic objects of experience. It discusses two forms this objection takes: one based on the putative fact that our evidence for quantum theories consists of low-dimensional objects, and another based on the putative fact that quantum theories are about low-dimensional objects, that they have primitive ontologies of local beables. Even admitting that there may be something straightforward and comprehensible about the fundamental ontologies for quantum theories proposed by the wave function realist, the philosophers who raise these objections see a problem with these ontologies in that they cannot serve as the constitutive foundation for the world as we experience it. And this undermines the promise of wave function realism to serve as a framework for the interpretation of quantum theories.