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

How to Make Sense of Quantum Mechanics(and More):Fundamental Physical Theories and Primitive Ontology

Valia Allori

Published Jan 1, 2015• 1 citation
OpenAlex

Abstract

Quantum mechanics has always been regarded as, at best, puzzling, if not contradictory. The aim of the paper is to explore a particular approach to fundamental physical theories, the one based on the notion of primitive ontology. This approach, when applied to quantum mechanics, makes it a paradox-free theory.

Related papers

Primitive Ontology in a Nutshell

Valia Allori

The aim of this paper is to summarize a particular approach of doing \nmetaphysics through physics - the primitive ontology approach. The idea is that any \nfundamental physical theory has a well-defined architecture, to the foundation of which \nthere is the primitive ontology, which represents matter. According to the framework \nprovided by this approach when applied to quantum mechanics, the wave function is not \nsuitable to represent matter. Rather, the wave function has a nomological character, given that its role in the theory is to implement the law of evolution for the primitive ontology.

International journal of quantum foundations•Jun 26, 2015•63 citations

On the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics

Valia Allori

What is quantum mechanics about? The most natural way to interpret quantum mechanics realistically as a theory about the world might seem to be what is called wave function ontology: the view according to which the wave function mathematically represents in a complete way fundamentally all there is in the world. We argue that: • Strictly speaking, it is not possible to interpret quantum theories as theories about the wave function; • Even if the wave function is supplemented by additional non-ontological structures, there are reasons not to take the resulting theory seriously; • All quantum theories should be regarded as theories in which physical objects are constituted by a primitive ontology. The primitive ontology is mathematically represented in the theory by a mathematical entity in three-dimensional space, or space-time.

•Jan 1, 2013•38 citations

Fundamental physical theories: mathematical structures grounded on a primitive ontology

Valia Allori

In my dissertation I analyze the structure of fundamental physical theories. I start with an analysis of what an adequate primitive ontology is, discussing the measurement problem in quantum mechanics and theirs solutions. It is commonly said that these theories have little in common. I argue instead that the moral of the measurement problem is that the wave function cannot represent physical objects and a common structure between these solutions can be recognized: each of them is about a clear three-dimensional primitive ontology that evolves according to a law determined by the wave function. The primitive ontology is what matter is made of while the wave function tells the matter how to move. One might think that what is important in the notion of primitive ontology is their three-dimensionality. If so, in a theory like classical electrodynamics electromagnetic fields would be part of the primitive ontology. I argue that, reflecting on what the purpose of a fundamental physical theory is, namely to explain the behavior of objects in three--dimensional space, one can recognize that a fundamental physical theory has a particular architecture. If so, electromagnetic fields play a different role in the theory than the particles and therefore should be considered, like the wave function, as part of the law.Therefore, we can characterize the general structure of a fundamental physical theory as a mathematical structure grounded on a primitive ontology. I explore this idea to better understand theories like classical mechanics and relativity, emphasizing that primitive ontology is crucial in the process of building new theories, being fundamental in identifying the symmetries. Finally, I analyze what it means to explain the word around us in terms of the notion of primitive ontology in the case of regularities of statistical character. Here is where the notion of typicality comes into play: we have explained a phenomenon if the typical histories of the primitive ontology give rise to the statistical regularities we observe.

•Jan 1, 2007•5 citations

A Prolegomenon to the Ontology of the Everett Interpretation*

David Wallace

According to the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, the apparent paradoxes of quantum theory require no change either in our philosophical attitude toward scientific theories or in the formalism of quantum mechanics itself. Rather, the unaltered theory can be understood as a literal description of physical reality. But the physical reality thus described is one of many noninteracting, approximately classical worlds. These worlds enter the theory not at the fundamental level—they are nowhere to be found in the basic formalism—but at a higher, emergent level; in this sense they are (ontologically speaking) on a par with the ontology of the special sciences.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Apr 8, 2013•24 citations

Primitive Ontology and the Structure of Fundamental Physical Theories

Valia Allori

In contrast to what is commonly believed, fundamental physical theories (like classical and quantum mechanics) have a common structure: the (microscopic) constituents of material objects are mathematically represented by a primitive ontology, an entity in space-time. Because the wave function lives in configuration space, the problem for the metaphysician is to establish what the wave function is.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Apr 8, 2013•202 citations

Some problems in the interpretation of quantum mechanics

Philip R. Wallace

A number of books have appeared purporting to explain quantum mechanics to the general public. These books have put considerable emphasis on so-called quantum 'paradoxes', using them to portray the quantum theory as mysterious or 'spooky'. The author discusses these 'paradoxes' from a different viewpoint with the aim of demystifying the theory. Emphasis is shifted from an epistemological viewpoint (as exemplified by the 'probability interpretation') to an ontological one (the description of matter by physical fields). Difficulties in reconciling the probability interpretation with relativity are noted, and the importance of phase coherence, which is inadequately treated in the probability interpretation, is emphasised. In the light of such as approach, the 'paradoxes' are resolved.

European Journal of Physics•Jul 1, 1990•0 citations
The aim of this paper is to summarize a particular approach of doing \nmetaphysics through physics - the primitive ontology approach. The idea is that any \nfundamental physical theory has a well-defined architecture, to the foundation of which \nthere is the primitive ontology, which represents matter. According to the framework \nprovided by this approach when applied to quantum mechanics, the wave function is not \nsuitable to represent matter. Rather, the wave function has a nomological character, given that its role in the theory is to implement the law of evolution for the primitive ontology.
What is quantum mechanics about? The most natural way to interpret quantum mechanics realistically as a theory about the world might seem to be what is called wave function ontology: the view according to which the wave function mathematically represents in a complete way fundamentally all there is in the world. We argue that: • Strictly speaking, it is not possible to interpret quantum theories as theories about the wave function; • Even if the wave function is supplemented by additional non-ontological structures, there are reasons not to take the resulting theory seriously; • All quantum theories should be regarded as theories in which physical objects are constituted by a primitive ontology. The primitive ontology is mathematically represented in the theory by a mathematical entity in three-dimensional space, or space-time.
In my dissertation I analyze the structure of fundamental physical theories. I start with an analysis of what an adequate primitive ontology is, discussing the measurement problem in quantum mechanics and theirs solutions. It is commonly said that these theories have little in common. I argue instead that the moral of the measurement problem is that the wave function cannot represent physical objects and a common structure between these solutions can be recognized: each of them is about a clear three-dimensional primitive ontology that evolves according to a law determined by the wave function. The primitive ontology is what matter is made of while the wave function tells the matter how to move. One might think that what is important in the notion of primitive ontology is their three-dimensionality. If so, in a theory like classical electrodynamics electromagnetic fields would be part of the primitive ontology. I argue that, reflecting on what the purpose of a fundamental physical theory is, namely to explain the behavior of objects in three--dimensional space, one can recognize that a fundamental physical theory has a particular architecture. If so, electromagnetic fields play a different role in the theory than the particles and therefore should be considered, like the wave function, as part of the law.Therefore, we can characterize the general structure of a fundamental physical theory as a mathematical structure grounded on a primitive ontology. I explore this idea to better understand theories like classical mechanics and relativity, emphasizing that primitive ontology is crucial in the process of building new theories, being fundamental in identifying the symmetries. Finally, I analyze what it means to explain the word around us in terms of the notion of primitive ontology in the case of regularities of statistical character. Here is where the notion of typicality comes into play: we have explained a phenomenon if the typical histories of the primitive ontology give rise to the statistical regularities we observe.
According to the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, the apparent paradoxes of quantum theory require no change either in our philosophical attitude toward scientific theories or in the formalism of quantum mechanics itself. Rather, the unaltered theory can be understood as a literal description of physical reality. But the physical reality thus described is one of many noninteracting, approximately classical worlds. These worlds enter the theory not at the fundamental level—they are nowhere to be found in the basic formalism—but at a higher, emergent level; in this sense they are (ontologically speaking) on a par with the ontology of the special sciences.
A number of books have appeared purporting to explain quantum mechanics to the general public. These books have put considerable emphasis on so-called quantum 'paradoxes', using them to portray the quantum theory as mysterious or 'spooky'. The author discusses these 'paradoxes' from a different viewpoint with the aim of demystifying the theory. Emphasis is shifted from an epistemological viewpoint (as exemplified by the 'probability interpretation') to an ontological one (the description of matter by physical fields). Difficulties in reconciling the probability interpretation with relativity are noted, and the importance of phase coherence, which is inadequately treated in the probability interpretation, is emphasised. In the light of such as approach, the 'paradoxes' are resolved.