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

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics

Quantum entanglement and a metaphysics of relations

Michaël Esfeld

Published Nov 8, 2004• 178 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1016/j.shpsb.2004.04.008

Related papers

Quantum entanglement and the interpretations of quantum mechanics

F.J. Duarte, T S Taylor

Institute of Physics eBooks•Jul 1, 2021•0 citations

Quantum Entanglement, Internality and Dependence

Pasqualini, Matías Daniel

The metaphysics of quantum entanglement has been a subject of interest among philosophers of physics in recent decades. Entanglement is commonly described as a relation that does not depend on the intrinsic properties of its relata. This feature has led some authors to propose that the quantum reality is fundamentally relational and/or holistic. Moreover, it has been employed to support various influential metaphysical perspectives within the metaphysics of science, including structuralism, monism, and, recently, coherentism. This paper advocates a non-reductionist approach to internal relations, drawing on Fine’s analysis of propositions involving essential properties. Assuming the pervasiveness of quantum entanglement, it is argued that treating it as an internal relation is the most compelling option. Under this interpretation, entanglement can be accommodated within different metaphysical frameworks: (1) as a fundamental internal relation, it aligns with structuralism; (2) as a derivative internal relation, it is compatible with monism; and (3) as a relation of dependence, it supports coherentism.

•Jan 1, 2025•0 citations

Causality and Entanglement in the Quantum World

Jürgen Audretsch

European Review•Aug 20, 2010•2 citations

Against 'Particle Metaphysics' and 'Collapses' within the Definition of Quantum Entanglement

Christian DE RONDE, César Massri

In this paper we argue against the orthodox definition of quantum entanglement which has been explicitly grounded on several "common sense" (metaphysical) presuppositions and presents today serious formal and conceptual drawbacks. This interpretation which some researchers in the field call "minimal", has ended up creating a narrative according to which QM talks about "small particles" represented by pure states (in general, superpositions) which --each time someone attempts to observe what is going on-- suddenly "collapse" to a single measurement outcome. After discussing the consequences of applying 'particle metaphysics' within the definition of entanglement we turn our attention to two recent approaches which might offer an interesting way out of this metaphysical conundrum. Both approaches concentrate their efforts in going beyond the notion of 'system'. While the first, called device-independent approach, proposes an operational anti-metaphysical scheme in which language plays an essential role; the second approach, takes an essentially metaphysical path which attempts to present a new non-classical representation grounded on intensive relations which, in turn, imposes the need to reconsider the definition and meaning of quantum entanglement.

arXiv:1911.10990•Nov 21, 2019•2 citations

The Logos Categorical Approach to Quantum Mechanics: III. Relational Potential Coding and Quantum Entanglement Beyond Collapses, Pure States and Particle Metaphysics

Christian DE RONDE, César Massri

In this paper we consider the notion of quantum entanglement from the perspective of the logos categorical approach [26, 27]. Firstly, we will argue that the widespread distinctions, on the one hand, between pure states and mixed states, and on the other, between separable states and entangled states, are completely superfluous when considering the orthodox mathematical formalism of QM. We will then argue that the introduction of these distinctions within the theory of quanta is due to another two completely unjustified metaphysical presuppositions, namely, the idea that there is a "collapse" of quantum states when being measured and the idea that QM talks about "elementary particles". At distance from these distinctions and taking the logos approach as a standpoint, we will propose an objective formal account of the notion of entanglement in terms of potential coding which introduces the necessary distinction between intensive relations and effective relations. We will also discuss how this new definition of entanglement provides an anschaulich content to this --supposedly "spooky"-- quantum relational feature.

arXiv:1807.08344•Jul 22, 2018•1 citation

Quantum Entanglement and the Philosophy of Relations: Jaina Perspective

Sisir Roy

•Jan 1, 2018•0 citations
The metaphysics of quantum entanglement has been a subject of interest among philosophers of physics in recent decades. Entanglement is commonly described as a relation that does not depend on the intrinsic properties of its relata. This feature has led some authors to propose that the quantum reality is fundamentally relational and/or holistic. Moreover, it has been employed to support various influential metaphysical perspectives within the metaphysics of science, including structuralism, monism, and, recently, coherentism. This paper advocates a non-reductionist approach to internal relations, drawing on Fine’s analysis of propositions involving essential properties. Assuming the pervasiveness of quantum entanglement, it is argued that treating it as an internal relation is the most compelling option. Under this interpretation, entanglement can be accommodated within different metaphysical frameworks: (1) as a fundamental internal relation, it aligns with structuralism; (2) as a derivative internal relation, it is compatible with monism; and (3) as a relation of dependence, it supports coherentism.
In this paper we argue against the orthodox definition of quantum entanglement which has been explicitly grounded on several "common sense" (metaphysical) presuppositions and presents today serious formal and conceptual drawbacks. This interpretation which some researchers in the field call "minimal", has ended up creating a narrative according to which QM talks about "small particles" represented by pure states (in general, superpositions) which --each time someone attempts to observe what is going on-- suddenly "collapse" to a single measurement outcome. After discussing the consequences of applying 'particle metaphysics' within the definition of entanglement we turn our attention to two recent approaches which might offer an interesting way out of this metaphysical conundrum. Both approaches concentrate their efforts in going beyond the notion of 'system'. While the first, called device-independent approach, proposes an operational anti-metaphysical scheme in which language plays an essential role; the second approach, takes an essentially metaphysical path which attempts to present a new non-classical representation grounded on intensive relations which, in turn, imposes the need to reconsider the definition and meaning of quantum entanglement.
In this paper we consider the notion of quantum entanglement from the perspective of the logos categorical approach [26, 27]. Firstly, we will argue that the widespread distinctions, on the one hand, between pure states and mixed states, and on the other, between separable states and entangled states, are completely superfluous when considering the orthodox mathematical formalism of QM. We will then argue that the introduction of these distinctions within the theory of quanta is due to another two completely unjustified metaphysical presuppositions, namely, the idea that there is a "collapse" of quantum states when being measured and the idea that QM talks about "elementary particles". At distance from these distinctions and taking the logos approach as a standpoint, we will propose an objective formal account of the notion of entanglement in terms of potential coding which introduces the necessary distinction between intensive relations and effective relations. We will also discuss how this new definition of entanglement provides an anschaulich content to this --supposedly "spooky"-- quantum relational feature.