What exists at the fundamental level of reality? On the standard picture, the fundamental reality contains (among other things) fundamental matter, such as particles, fields, or even the quantum state. Non-fundamental facts are explained by facts about fundamental matter, at least in part. In this paper, I introduce a non-standard picture called the “cosmic void” in which the universe is devoid of any fundamental material ontology. Facts about tables and chairs are recovered from a special kind of laws that satisfy strong determinism. All non-fundamental facts are completely explained by nomic facts. I discuss a concrete example of this picture in a strongly deterministic version of the many-worlds theory of quantum mechanics. I discuss some philosophical and scientific challenges to this view, as well as some connections to ontological nihilism.
What exists at the fundamental level of reality? On the standard picture, the fundamental reality contains (among other things) fundamental matter, such as particles, fields, or even the quantum state. Non-fundamental facts are explained by facts about fundamental matter, at least in part. In this paper, I introduce a non-standard picture called the “cosmic void” in which the universe is devoid of any fundamental material ontology. Facts about tables and chairs are recovered from a special kind of laws that satisfy strong determinism. All non-fundamental facts are completely explained by nomic facts. I discuss a concrete example of this picture in a strongly deterministic version of the many-worlds theory of quantum mechanics. I discuss some philosophical and scientific challenges to this view, as well as some connections to ontological nihilism.
Several experiments have suggested that the complete indistinguishability of quantum systems is to be considered a real phenomenon. Experiments such as the HOM effect, the existence of BECs, the path identity cases, and many others are physical realities of today. Physicists `explain’ these phenomena using different models, such as Bohmian mechanics, relational quantum mechanics or the QBism approach. Most of these models are constructed within a standard mathematical framework, meaning standard mathematics, where all things can, even if only in principle, be distinguished from one another, so complete indistinguishability can only be mimicked. These approaches may work for physical purposes but are debatable regarding logical and metaphysical questions. If we accept that such questions are at least part of the philosophical aspect of quantum physics, then we are authorised to analyse them and try to offer an alternative. Looking for an alternative, we consider Alain Aspect’s and Anton Zeilinger’s views about quantum realism, opting for Aspect’s acceptance of some kind of reality behind the wave-function, while Zeilinger suggests that everything comes from information. In our opinion, the case is the opposite: it is information that comes from the existence of things. The aim of this paper is to justify why we think that the underlying reality (in Aspect’s sense) can be seen as a quantum ontology of non-individuals.
The fundamental physical theories that interpret and explain behaviour of matter in nature are dependent on several unobservables and insensibles in their construction. While a rigorous natural philosophy cannot take them for granted, there does not seem to be a way of avoiding such unobservables in our theories. While a program to banish all unobservables from physical theory is unlikely to succeed, and perhaps even unnecessary, they are both the strong and weak points of the theoretical descriptions of physical nature. Analyzing them for empirical and philosophical consistency and integrity is always a promising path towards a better theory. In this paper, I examine the nature of physical reality in the context of unobservables in physics and discuss three examples. One is about the apparent loss of physical reality due to the need for a consistent quantum mechanical representation. The second example deals with the conflict between the assumed reality of quantum fields, so fundamental and essential to our standard physics worldview, and the dynamics of the observable universe. The third deals with an all-important difference between conventional modern physics constructed in the unreal and unobservable empty `space' and an empirically and logically determined physics with matter-filled universe as its arena. The acknowledgment of the observable matter-filled universe necessitates reformulation of dynamics with total relativity. Not surprisingly, this paradigm with its universal cosmic links also holds human concepts of harmony and beauty.
The fundamental physical theories that interpret and explain behaviour of matter in nature are dependent on several unobservables and insensibles in their construction.While a rigorous natural philosophy cannot take them for granted, there does not seem to be a way of avoiding such unobservables in our theories.While a program to banish all unobservables from physical theory is unlikely to succeed, and perhaps even unnecessary, they are both the strong and weak points of the theoretical descriptions of physical nature.Analyzing them for empirical and philosophical consistency and integrity is always a promising path towards a better theory.In this paper, I examine the nature of physical reality in the context of unobservables in physics and discuss three examples.One is about the apparent loss of physical reality due to the need for a consistent quantum mechanical representation.The second example deals with the conflict between the assumed reality of quantum fields, so fundamental and essential to our standard physics worldview, and the dynamics of the observable universe.The third deals with an allimportant difference between conventional modern physics constructed in the unreal and unobservable empty 'space' and an empirically and logically determined physics with matter-filled universe as its arena.The acknowledgment of the observable matter-filled universe necessitates reformulation of dynamics with total relativity.Not surprisingly, this paradigm with its universal cosmic links also holds human concepts of harmony and beauty.
Since its inception, the intricate mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics has empowered physicists to describe and predict specific physical events known as quantum processes. However, this success in probabilistic predictions has been accompanied by a profound challenge in the ontological interpretation of the theory. This interpretative complexity stems from two key aspects. Firstly, quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory that, so far, is not derivable from any more basic scientific theory. Secondly, it delves into a realm of invisible phenomena that often contradicts our intuitive and commonsensical notions of matter and causality. Despite its notorious difficulties of interpretation, the most widely accepted set of views of quantum phenomena has been known as the Copenhagen interpretation since the beginning of quantum mechanics. According to these views, the correct ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics is incompatible with ontological realism in general and with philosophical materialism in particular. Anti-realist and anti-materialist interpretations of quantum matter have survived until today. This paper discusses these perspectives, arguing that materialistic interpretations of quantum mechanics are compatible with its mathematical formalism, while anti-realist and anti-materialist views are based on wrong philosophical assumptions. However, although physicalism provides a better explanation for quantum phenomena than idealism, its downward reductionism prevents it from accounting for more complex forms of matter, such as biological or sociocultural systems. Thus, the paper argues that neither physicalism nor idealism can explain the universe. I propose then a non-reductionistic form of materialism called inclusive materialism. The conclusion is that the acknowledgment of the qualitative irreducibility of ontological emergent levels above the purely physical one does not deny philosophical materialism but enriches it.
During the past two or three centuries western philosophy and science have confirmed each other in their ontological attitude towards external reality. The particular opinion that physical objects have an existence completely independent of observation was established as the necessary basis for all scientific investigation. The discovery in quantum physics that the phenomena ultimately constituting the stability of the material world cannot be separated from the instruments of observation was necessarily felt disastrous to the scientific world-picture, and many philosophers and scientists, including celebrated physicists, are still trying by all means to save ontology in quantum physics. The motive power behind this activity is the belief that the objectivity of science can be maintained only if the elementary particles of matter can be objectified in the usual way. The present chapter deals with the fundamental conditions in quantum physics which entail a complete breakdown of the conceptual frame of classical mechanics
We see objects in front of us, and experience a real material effect when we approach and touch them. Thus, we conclude that all objects are embedded in space and exist objectively. However, such experiences in everyday life cannot be transferred to the atomic level: within standard quantum theory, the material world is still embedded in space, but it no longer has an objective existence. How can objects be embedded in space without existing objectively? This book addresses this and similar issues in an illustrative and non-conventional way. Using up-to-date information, the following basic questions are contemplated: what is a particle, a quantum object; what can we say about the nature of time; how is reality, in particular the cosmos, formed; and, what is the influence of evolution on the discovery of new developments in this field. Like the philosophers Whitehead and Bergson, the primacy of process is advocated: we experience objects - both quantum objects and those we experience in everyday life - at certain positions in space, but everything is a matter of process and the existence of static objects in space is thus eliminated.