© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

arXiv:2510.18111 · Principia an international journal of epistemology

Incomplete yet existent objects: a Nuclear Meinongian approach to quantum metaphysical indeterminacy

Raoni Wohnrath Arroyo, Renato Semaniuc Valvassori

Published Dec 17, 2025• 0 citations

Abstract

This article proposes a reading of quantum metaphysical indeterminacy from the perspective of Parsons’ Nuclear Meinongianism. In doing so, we identify a fundamental incompatibility between a key feature of Parsons’ theory and standard quantum mechanics. Our approach interprets quantum indeterminacy as property incompleteness. However, this move, when combined with Parsons’ framework, leads to what we term the “Incompleteness-Entails-Nonexistence Principle” (IENP), which implausibly entails the nonexistence of quantum objects. For Meinongianism to be a suitable tool for the metaphysics of quantum mechanics, this principle must be addressed. We argue for dropping the IENP and discuss the resulting metaphysical and metametaphysical consequences.

DOI: 10.5007/1808-1711.2025.e108890

Related papers

Emergent quantum indeterminacy

Cristian Mariani

Abstract Many features of quantum mechanics (QM) suggest that, at the microscopic level, objects sometimes fail to determinately instantiate their properties. In recent years, many have argued that this phenomenon indicates the existence of an ontological kind of indeterminacy, often called metaphysical indeterminacy , which is supposed to affect the ontology of QM. As insisted by Glick ('Against Quantum Indeterminacy, 2017, Thought), however, once we look at the major realist approaches to QM we learn that the indeterminacy disappears from the description of the world at its most fundamental level. This absence might be taken as a good reason for adopting some form of eliminativism towards quantum mechanical indeterminacy. The aim of this paper is to distinguish three ways of defending eliminativism, and to argue that none of them eventually succeeds. The upshot is that QM does in fact suggest the existence of metaphysical indeterminacy, although only as an emergent phenomenon.

Ratio•Mar 20, 2021•11 citations

On algebraic object naturalism and metaphysical indeterminacy in quantum mechanics

Tushar Menon

I propose a technique for identifying fundamental properties using structures already present in physical theories. I argue that, in conjunction with a particular naturalistic commitment, that I dub `algebraic naturalism', these structures can be used to generate a standard of metaphysical determinacy. This standard can be used to rule out the possibility of a virulent strain of `deep' metaphysical indeterminacy that has been imputed to quantum mechanics.

•Sep 27, 2023•0 citations

Metaphysical Indeterminacy, Properties, and Quantum Theory

Alisa Bokulich

It has frequently been suggested that quantum mechanics may provide a genuine case of ontic vagueness or metaphysical indeterminacy. However, discussions of quantum theory in the vagueness literature are often cur- sory and, as I shall argue, have in some respects been mis- guided. Hitherto much of the debate over ontic vagueness and quantum theory has centered on the indeterminate construal of ontic vagueness, and whether the quantum phenomenon of entanglement produces particles whose identity is indeterminate. I argue that this way of framing the debate is mistaken. A more thorough ex- amination of quantum theory and the phenomenon of entanglement reveals that quantum mechanics is best in- terpreted as supporting what I call the property construal of ontic vagueness, where vague properties are understood in terms of determinable properties without the corresponding determinates.

Res Philosophica•Jan 1, 2014•64 citations

Modelling deep indeterminacy

George Darby, Martin Pickup

Abstract This paper constructs a model of metaphysical indeterminacy that can accommodate a kind of ‘deep’ worldly indeterminacy that arguably arises in quantum mechanics via the Kochen–Specker theorem, and that is incompatible with prominent theories of metaphysical indeterminacy such as that in Barnes and Williams (Oxf Stud Metaphys 6:103–148, 2011). We construct a variant of Barnes and Williams’s theory that avoids this problem. Our version builds on situation semantics and uses incomplete, local situations rather than possible worlds to build a model. We evaluate the resulting theory and contrast it with similar alternatives, concluding that our model successfully captures deep indeterminacy.

Synthese•Feb 28, 2019•25 citations

Quantum relational indeterminacy

Claudio Calosi, Cristian Mariani

The paper presents the first thorough investigation of quantum metaphysical indeterminacy (MI) in the context of the Relational Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (RQM). We contend that the interaction between MI and RQM is mutually beneficial. On the one hand, MI provides a metaphysical framework for RQM that has been neglected in the literature, and that promises to undermine some objections that are often raised against RQM. On the other hand, RQM might serve as an example of fundamental quantum MI.

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics•Jul 11, 2020•58 citations

Plural metaphysical supervaluationism

Cristian Mariani, Robert Michels, Giuliano Torrengo

It has been argued that quantum mechanics forces us to accept the existence of metaphysical, mind-independent indeterminacy. In this paper, we provide an interpretation of the indeterminacy involved in the quantum phenomena in terms of a view that we call Plural Metaphysical Supervaluationism. According to it, quantum indeterminacy is captured in terms of an irreducibly plural relation between the actual world and various misrepresentations of it.

Inquiry•Sep 29, 2021•7 citations

This article proposes a reading of quantum metaphysical indeterminacy from the perspective of Parsons’ Nuclear Meinongianism. In doing so, we identify a fundamental incompatibility between a key feature of Parsons’ theory and standard quantum mechanics. Our approach interprets quantum indeterminacy as property incompleteness. However, this move, when combined with Parsons’ framework, leads to what we term the “Incompleteness-Entails-Nonexistence Principle” (IENP), which implausibly entails the nonexistence of quantum objects. For Meinongianism to be a suitable tool for the metaphysics of quantum mechanics, this principle must be addressed. We argue for dropping the IENP and discuss the resulting metaphysical and metametaphysical consequences.

Abstract Many features of quantum mechanics (QM) suggest that, at the microscopic level, objects sometimes fail to determinately instantiate their properties. In recent years, many have argued that this phenomenon indicates the existence of an ontological kind of indeterminacy, often called metaphysical indeterminacy , which is supposed to affect the ontology of QM. As insisted by Glick ('Against Quantum Indeterminacy, 2017, Thought), however, once we look at the major realist approaches to QM we learn that the indeterminacy disappears from the description of the world at its most fundamental level. This absence might be taken as a good reason for adopting some form of eliminativism towards quantum mechanical indeterminacy. The aim of this paper is to distinguish three ways of defending eliminativism, and to argue that none of them eventually succeeds. The upshot is that QM does in fact suggest the existence of metaphysical indeterminacy, although only as an emergent phenomenon.

It has frequently been suggested that quantum mechanics may provide a genuine case of ontic vagueness or metaphysical indeterminacy. However, discussions of quantum theory in the vagueness literature are often cur- sory and, as I shall argue, have in some respects been mis- guided. Hitherto much of the debate over ontic vagueness and quantum theory has centered on the indeterminate construal of ontic vagueness, and whether the quantum phenomenon of entanglement produces particles whose identity is indeterminate. I argue that this way of framing the debate is mistaken. A more thorough ex- amination of quantum theory and the phenomenon of entanglement reveals that quantum mechanics is best in- terpreted as supporting what I call the property construal of ontic vagueness, where vague properties are understood in terms of determinable properties without the corresponding determinates.

Abstract This paper constructs a model of metaphysical indeterminacy that can accommodate a kind of ‘deep’ worldly indeterminacy that arguably arises in quantum mechanics via the Kochen–Specker theorem, and that is incompatible with prominent theories of metaphysical indeterminacy such as that in Barnes and Williams (Oxf Stud Metaphys 6:103–148, 2011). We construct a variant of Barnes and Williams’s theory that avoids this problem. Our version builds on situation semantics and uses incomplete, local situations rather than possible worlds to build a model. We evaluate the resulting theory and contrast it with similar alternatives, concluding that our model successfully captures deep indeterminacy.

The paper presents the first thorough investigation of quantum metaphysical indeterminacy (MI) in the context of the Relational Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (RQM). We contend that the interaction between MI and RQM is mutually beneficial. On the one hand, MI provides a metaphysical framework for RQM that has been neglected in the literature, and that promises to undermine some objections that are often raised against RQM. On the other hand, RQM might serve as an example of fundamental quantum MI.