Dualities in physics have challenged traditional forms of scientific realism by undermining the idea that theories describe a unique underlying ontology. In this paper, we develop a new perspective on scientific realism that responds to this challenge. We argue that while realist commitment remains appropriate at the level of a theory's full formal structure, ontological commitment should be treated as tied to specific empirical contexts rather than to a fixed, real ontology. Our proposal draws inspiration from Dennett's notion of a "compression algorithm" as a defining criterion of a scientific theory. On this basis, we separate realism from ontological commitment. To clarify the stakes of this distinction, we contrast our approach with common core realism, which locates ontology in the invariant structure shared by dual models. Focusing on dualities in quantum mechanics and string theory, we show how our view accommodates ontological pluralism while preserving a robust form of structural realism.
Dualities in physics have challenged traditional forms of scientific realism by undermining the idea that theories describe a unique underlying ontology. In this paper, we develop a new perspective on scientific realism that responds to this challenge. We argue that while realist commitment remains appropriate at the level of a theory's full formal structure, ontological commitment should be treated as tied to specific empirical contexts rather than to a fixed, real ontology. Our proposal draws inspiration from Dennett's notion of a "compression algorithm" as a defining criterion of a scientific theory. On this basis, we separate realism from ontological commitment. To clarify the stakes of this distinction, we contrast our approach with common core realism, which locates ontology in the invariant structure shared by dual models. Focusing on dualities in quantum mechanics and string theory, we show how our view accommodates ontological pluralism while preserving a robust form of structural realism.
Scientific realism has traditionally maintained that our best scientific theories can be regarded as more or less true and as representing the world as it is (more or less). However, one of our very best current theories—quantum mechanics—has famously resisted such a realist construal, threatening to undermine the realist stance altogether. The chapters in this volume carefully examine this tension and the reasons behind it, including the underdetermination generated by the multiplicity of formulations and interpretations of quantum physics, each presenting a different way the world could be. Authors in this volume offer a range of alternative ways forward: some suggest new articulations of realism, limiting our commitments in one way or another; others attempt to articulate a ‘third way’ between traditional forms of realism and antirealism, or are critical of such attempts. Still others argue that quantum theory itself should be reconceptualised, or at least alternative formulations should be considered in the hope of evading the problems faced by realism. And some examine the nature of these issues when moving beyond quantum mechanics to quantum field theory. Taken together they offer an exciting new set of perspectives on one of the most fundamental questions in the philosophy of modern physics: how can one be a realist about quantum theory, and what does this realism amount to?
According to scientific realism, science gives us an approximately true description of what the world is like. But what does it mean? In this chapter, we focus on the ontological and metaphysical aspects of this discussion. That is, we are concerned with the following questions: what there is, according to our best scientific theories? And how are these things that theories say exist? We start from the assumption that a genuine scientific realism must deal with these issues. Taking non-relativistic quantum mechanics as a case study, we discuss some of the challenges currently faced by a genuinely realistic stance. We argue, first, that in the ontological aspect, realists are in the same boat as science, that is, without sufficient epistemic justification to adopt the belief in the entities postulated by a single quantum theory, given that experience (currently) is not able to decide between rival theories; in the metaphysical aspect, realists also encounter problems with theory choice, given the possibility of associating more than one metaphysical theory with the description of the entities postulated by each quantum theory. The same goes for structuralist alternatives, since, even if we accept that scientific theories are committed to the existence of structures, but not objects, we still do not know what structures are, metaphysically. Finally, we move forward in the discussion with the meta-Popperian method, which serves to reduce the metaphysical alternatives associated with the ontological postulates of scientific theories. We may not know what the correct alternative is, but we have been able to progressively check which metaphysical alternatives are incompatible with each scientific theory.
Quantum mechanics is empirically unmatched, yet its ontology remains unsettled. This paper advances a realist research program that treats wave–particle duality as a deep source of several tensions in quantum foundations, including measurement, localization, and wave–function collapse. It further argues that these issues are often intensified by hypostatization: the elevation of abstract elements of the formalism, especially the wave function, to the status of concrete physical entities without clear criteria for physical reality. To address this, the paper develops physical realism, a realist framework that regulates ontological commitment by explicit anti–hypostatization criteria. On that basis, it proposes an energistic ontology for quantum foundations at the quantum level. This gives rise to the hypothesis of a Universal Energy Field (UEF) and energy wave–forms as alternatives to the dualistic wave-particle framework. Although its main emphasis is on ontology, the paper introduces also an initial formal description of energistic dynamics in Appendix A. Its role is primarily to show that the paper’s main conceptual claims can be mathematically tractable, with the UEF and energy wave–forms being expressed through primitive postulates, an initial regime–dependent dynamics, and a stationary condensation equation.
This paper argues that, where deterministic and indeterministic formulations agree on empirically corroborated structure while differing in their completion of structure that remains empirically underdetermined, features invariant across these formulations warrant ontological commitment, whereas any warrant attaching to features that vary across them is categorically more provisional. Because deterministic and indeterministic completions are always formally available, while additional grounds for preferring particular completions are contingent and defeasible, empirically corroborated structure alone cannot determine whether reality is fundamentally deterministic or indeterministic, or whether that very distinction belongs only to specific representations of it.
On this basis, I advance a model-invariance criterion according to which structural features are candidates for realist commitment insofar as they are empirically corroborated within a regime and preserved across the admissible formulations of that structure. I show how such invariant content can be characterised in mathematically intelligible ways, yielding a fallibilist form of structural realism grounded in model-invariance rather than in the specific form of any given mathematical representation. Features such as conservation relations, invariant measures, symmetries, and probability or correlation structures over observable histories may satisfy this criterion. By contrast, the localisation of modal selection---whether in fine-grained initial conditions, stochastic outcomes, or state-update and collapse mechanisms---may vary across empirically admissible formulations and therefore constitute a gauge-like representational freedom.
This framework offers a realist ontology for modern physics that combines empirical openness with resistance to metaphysical overreach.
The article analyzes the principal interpretations of quantum mechanics from the standpoint of an original conception of informational realism. It is shown that these interpretations can be unified within an informational ontology in which fundamental status is accorded to informational invariants of quantum constraints that are common to all empirically equivalent interpretations of quantum mechanics. A distinction is proposed between two informational layers: epistemic information (measurement data and the updating of knowledge on their basis) and ontic information (invariant structures and constraints). The first layer varies across interpretations, whereas the second is preserved, which explains their experimental equivalence. The proposed informational ontology is compared with other realist approaches, and its advantages are formulated and argued for. It is shown that all the interpretations considered, despite often incompatible philosophical foundations and worldviews, are equally dependent on a certain set of informational invariants, which prove to be primary with respect to any particular interpretation. This can be explained either by the fact that a unified descriptive model of real physical processes at the quantum level is still unknown, or – as argued in the present article – by the claim that the fundamental level consists of informational constraints, and that different descriptions are equivalent, with their differences explained by distinct perspectives. The novelty and contribution of the article consist in proposing an operational definition of a falsifiable class of invariants and constraints on operations that are stable under changes of perspective; providing a unified translational vocabulary for interpretations in terms of the two informational layers; showing that their empirical equivalence is explained by the preservation of the same ontic layer; and formulating a criterion for distinguishing interpretations from alternative theories. Taken together, this allows informational ontology to be regarded as a meta-position with respect to these interpretations.
According to scientific realism, science gives us an approximately true description of what the world is like. But what does it mean? In this chapter, we focus on the ontological and metaphysical aspects of this discussion. That is, we are concerned with the following questions: what there is, according to our best scientific theories? And how are these things that theories say exist? We start from the assumption that a genuine scientific realism must deal with these issues. Taking non-relativistic quantum mechanics as a case study, we discuss some of the challenges currently faced by a genuinely realistic stance. We argue, first, that in the ontological aspect, realists are in the same boat as science, that is, without sufficient epistemic justification to adopt the belief in the entities postulated by a single quantum theory, given that experience (currently) is not able to decide between rival theories; in the metaphysical aspect, realists also encounter problems with theory choice, given the possibility of associating more than one metaphysical theory with the description of the entities postulated by each quantum theory. The same goes for structuralist alternatives, since, even if we accept that scientific theories are committed to the existence of structures, but not objects, we still do not know what structures are, metaphysically. Finally, we move forward in the discussion with the meta-Popperian method, which serves to reduce the metaphysical alternatives associated with the ontological postulates of scientific theories. We may not know what the correct alternative is, but we have been able to progressively check which metaphysical alternatives are incompatible with each scientific theory.