In this paper, I introduce an intrinsic account of the quantum state. This account contains three desirable features that the standard platonistic account lacks: (1) it does not refer to any abstract mathematical objects such as complex numbers, (2) it is independent of the usual arbitrary conventions in the wave function representation, and (3) it explains why the quantum state has its amplitude and phase degrees of freedom. Consequently, this account extends Hartry Field’s program outlined in Science Without Numbers (1980), responds to David Malament’s long-standing impossibility conjecture (1982), and establishes an important first step towards a genuinely intrinsic and nominalistic account of quantum mechanics. I will also compare the present account to Mark Balaguer’s (1996) nominalization of quantum mechanics and discuss how it might bear on the debate about “wave function realism.” In closing, I will suggest some possible ways to extend this account to accommodate spinorial degrees of freedom and a variable number of particles (e.g. for particle creation and annihilation). Along the way, I axiomatize the quantum phase structure as what I shall call a “periodic difference structure” and prove a representation theorem as well as a uniqueness theorem. These formal results could prove fruitful for further investigation into the metaphysics of phase and theoretical structure. (For a more recent version of this paper, please see "The Intrinsic Structure of Quantum Mechanics" available on PhilPapers.)
In this paper, I introduce an intrinsic account of the quantum state. This account contains three desirable features that the standard platonistic account lacks: (1) it does not refer to any abstract mathematical objects such as complex numbers, (2) it is independent of the usual arbitrary conventions in the wave function representation, and (3) it explains why the quantum state has its amplitude and phase degrees of freedom. Consequently, this account extends Hartry Field’s program outlined in Science Without Numbers (1980), responds to David Malament’s long-standing impossibility conjecture (1982), and establishes an important first step towards a genuinely intrinsic and nominalistic account of quantum mechanics. I will also compare the present account to Mark Balaguer’s (1996) nominalization of quantum mechanics and discuss how it might bear on the debate about “wave function realism.” In closing, I will suggest some possible ways to extend this account to accommodate spinorial degrees of freedom and a variable number of particles (e.g. for particle creation and annihilation). Along the way, I axiomatize the quantum phase structure as what I shall call a “periodic difference structure” and prove a representation theorem as well as a uniqueness theorem. These formal results could prove fruitful for further investigation into the metaphysics of phase and theoretical structure. (For a more recent version of this paper, please see "The Intrinsic Structure of Quantum Mechanics" available on PhilPapers.)
The wave function in quantum mechanics presents an interesting challenge to our understanding of the physical world. In this paper, I show that the wave function can be understood as four intrinsic relations on physical space. My account has three desirable features that the standard account lacks: (1) it does not refer to any abstract mathematical objects, (2) it is free from the usual arbitrary conventions, and (3) it explains why the wave function has its gauge degrees of freedom, something that are usually put into the theory by hand. Hence, this account has implications for debates in philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science. First, by removing references to mathematical objects, it provides a framework for nominalizing quantum mechanics. Second, by excising superfluous structure such as overall phase, it reveals the intrinsic structure postulated by quantum mechanics. Moreover, it also removes a major obstacle to "wave function realism."
In this paper I will provide the beginnings of a nominalization of quantum mechanics, or QM. I will not completely nominalize QM, but I will pro-vide what I think is the most important part of such a nominalization, namely, a nominalistic recovery of the algebraic structure of Hilbert spaces. To nominalize QM is to reformulate it so that it no longer contains any reference to, or quantification over, abstract objects, i.e., objects which are aspatial, atemporal, acausal, mind-independent, etc. The reason for want-ing to do this is to show that we can be realists about QM without believ-ing in abstract objects. To argue that our physical theories can be nominalized is not to argue that nominalism—i.e., the view that there are no abstract objects—is true. It is merely to rebut a certain argument against nominalism, viz., the Quine-Putnam indispensability argument. I do not think there are any good arguments for nominalism, and I have elsewhere (1995) responded to what is widely regarded as the best such argument, viz., Benacerraf's (1973) epistemological argument against the existence of abstract objects. And I should also note here that even if it turns out that empirical science cannot be nominalized, it will not necessarily mean that nominalism is false, because it may be that nominalists can admit that empirical science contains indispensable abstract-object talk, and simply account for this fact; indeed, in another paper (forthcoming) I have tried to do just that. 1. How Field nominalizes The program of nominalization was initiated by Hartry Field (1980), who tried to nominalize Newtonian Gravitation Theory, a classical flat-space-time theory. David Malament has argued (1982) that Field's method can-not be extended to cover QM. I think Malament is wrong, and below, I will explain why. The first thing to do, however, is explain Field's method. I will concentrate on Field's nominalization of physical quantities, such as temperature and length (Field 1980, Ch. 7). For the sake of simplicity, my presentation will differ somewhat from Field's. For example, I concen-
Hartry Field (1980) has developed an interesting nominalization strategy for Newtonian gravitation theory—a strategy that reformulates the theory without quantification over abstract entities. According to David Malament (1982), Field's strategy cannot be extended to quantum mechanics (QM), and so it only has a limited scope. In a recent work, Mark Balaguer has responded to Malament's challenge by indicating how QM can be nominalized, and by “doing much of the work needed to provide the nominalization” (Balaguer 1998, 114). In this paper, I critically assess Balaguer's proposal, and argue that it ultimately fails. Balaguer's strategy is incompatible with a number of interpretations of QM, in particular with Bas van Fraassen's version of the modal interpretation. And given that Balaguer's strategy invokes physically real propensities, it is unclear whether it is even compatible with nominalism. I conclude that the nominalization of QM remains a major problem for the nominalist.
What is the proper metaphysics of quantum mechanics? In this dissertation, I approach the question from three different but related angles. First, I suggest that the quantum state can be understood intrinsically as relations holding among regions in ordinary space-time, from which we can recover the wave function uniquely up to an equivalence class (by representation and uniqueness theorems). The intrinsic account eliminates certain conventional elements (e.g. overall phase) in the representation of the quantum state. It also dispenses with first-order quantification over mathematical objects, which goes some way towards making the quantum world safe for a nominalistic metaphysics suggested in Field (1980, 2016). Second, I argue that the fundamental space of the quantum world is the low-dimensional physical space and not the high-dimensional space isomorphic to the ``configuration space.'' My arguments are based on considerations about dynamics, empirical adequacy, and symmetries of the quantum mechanics. Third, I show that, when we consider quantum mechanics in a time-asymmetric universe (with a large entropy gradient), we obtain new theoretical and conceptual possibilities. In such a model, we can use the low-entropy boundary condition known as the Past Hypothesis (Albert, 2000) to pin down a natural initial quantum state of the universe. However, the universal quantum state is not a pure state but a mixed state, represented by a density matrix that is the normalized projection onto the Past Hypothesis subspace. This particular choice has interesting consequences for Humean supervenience, statistical mechanical probabilities, and theoretical unity.
One hundred years after the creation of quantum theory, there is no consensus on the kind of reality that is described by the theory. Here, I attribute the lack of progress to the prevailing interpretative methodology, which invariably takes the quantum formalism as the starting point for philosophical reflection and analysis. I argue that this methodology is particularly inappropriate, for it invariably marginalizes much of the theory's content, both that implicit in modelling heuristics and experimental practices, and that encapsulated in the mathematical structures of its formalism. In addition, the prevailing methodology offers little protection against undue influence by metaphysically-laden language which invariably accompanies the formalism.
Here, I summarize an alternative methodology whose goal is to ensure that an interpretational project take into account all forms of theoretic content. The methodology harnesses the recent results of the quantum reconstruction program. These results distil the mathematical content of the quantum formalism into physical principles and assumptions, which are more readily philosophically digestible than the formalism itself, and bracket much of its metaphysically-laden language.
As a case study of reconstruction-based interpretation, I describe the reconstruction of the identical particle formalism, and its step-by-step interpretation, highlighting the key questions that drive the interpretation forwards and the techniques and stances that are employed in each step. The interpretation yields a novel metaphysical profile for systems of identical particles as potential parts of a whole, which can be traced step-by-step to elementary experimental data and the reconstruction's physical postulates and assumptions. I also describe some of the pitfalls that one faces in any attempt to directly interpret the identical particle formalism.
David Lewis famously quipped that he was willing to take metaphysical lessons from quantum mechanics only when it cleaned up its own act by providing interpretations or modifications of the formalism shorn of appeal to consciousness, irreducibly macroscopic notions, or outright instrumentalism. By the first decade of the twenty-first century, multiple approaches to quantum mechanics had been developed to a degree which met Lewis’s challenge: dynamical-collapse theories, Bohm-style hidden-variable theories, and Everett-style many-worlds theories, for all their respective problems and challenges, all offer ways of understanding quantum mechanics that metaphysicians can reasonably engage with. And so the last twenty years have seen a resurgence in the metaphysics of quantum mechanics, the question of what ontology and ideology is appropriate to a quantum universe. The metaphysics of quantum mechanics is not independent of the quantum measurement problem but does not coincide with it, either: there is a widespread view that adopting, say, the Everett interpretation still leaves significant ontological questions undecided, and conversely, a given answer to those questions might answer them for a dynamical-collapse theory too.Wave function realism has become a leading contender for the metaphysics of quantum mechanics, particularly in the case of dynamical-collapse and Everettian approaches. The starting point is nonrelativistic quantum mechanics expressed in configuration space: mathematically, the subject matter of the theory is a complex function of 3N variables, evolving under the Schrödinger equation (perhaps interrupted by occasional stochastic collapses). Traditionally those 3N variables are interpreted as the three coordinates of position of N particles—but in wave function realism, they are interpreted as points in a new, high-dimensional space. Quantum mechanics, according to the wave function realist, fundamentally concerns the undulations of the wave function in this space; three-dimensional goings-on are emergent, high-level, derivative.Alyssa Ney has been a leading figure in the development of wave function realism for most of its existence. Her articles advocating and developing the position have been highly influential, and the present book can be seen as the culmination of this line of her research and is the definitive statement of wave function realism as of 2021. Despite its comparative brevity, the book is too rich to be adequately described—far less critiqued—in this brief review; my goal is to give an overview of the main themes and arguments, and to make a few critical remarks along the way.The World in the Wavefunction is not formally divided into parts, but it can profitably be thought of that way. Chapters 1 through 3 develop the core case for wave function realism. Chapter 4 defends the position from the frequent criticism that it is restricted to nonrelativistic physics, by providing a version of wave function realism appropriate to quantum field theory. And chapters 5 through 7 are an extended exploration of how the observed three-dimensional world can be understood as emerging from a high-dimensional fundamental reality.The case Ney makes in chapters 1 through 3 for wavefunction realism is modest and cautious. In chapter 1 she provides a fairly standard—though elegantly expressed—case for the prima facie plausibility of wave function realism simply based on the fact that standard formulations of quantum mechanics are written in 3N dimensions, and on the (related) fact that entanglement means we cannot interpret quantum mechanics simply in terms of spatially localized particles and nothing else. But in chapter 2 she explicitly argues against any attempt to strengthen these plausibility arguments into reasons why wave function realism must be adopted; indeed, she provides a detailed and sympathetic taxonomy of the alternatives to wave function realism that have been developed, all of which she regards as entirely viable. (Chapter 2 of the book could profitably be used as introductory reading for a general graduate course on quantum metaphysics.) For Ney, the question of which metaphysics to adopt is a standard metaphysician’s question, to be answered by weighing strengths and weaknesses of the various alternatives against one another.In chapter 3, Ney identifies two such strengths for wave function realism. First, it is separable: we can specify the complete state of the universe point-by-point on the fundamental space, without any need to appeal to irreducible holism. Second, it is dynamically local: expressed in 3N-dimensional space, the Schrödinger dynamics involve no action at a distance.Ney makes the case for separability at length. Her case for dynamical locality is brief: she regards it as a straightforward consequence of the fact that the Schrödinger equation is a differential equation, so that the rate of change of the wave function at a point x depends only on the wave function arbitrarily close to x. But I think there is more worth investigating here: after all, the nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation may be a differential equation, but it is a parabolic differential equation, with no maximum speed of propagation: the rate of change of the wave function at x may depend only on a neighborhood of x, but the value of the wavefunction at x an arbitrarily short time later depends on the wave function everywhere in space. (And this is not—or not straightforwardly—just an artifact of ignoring relativity.)But in any case, why think that a separable, local theory is preferable to the alternative? Ney claims that separability and locality are more intuitive and lead to a more comprehensible ontology—and she makes an unabashed defense of intuitiveness and explicability as theoretical virtues. She is quite explicit that her reasons are pragmatic: intuitive theories benefit students and teachers; they are better suited to help us develop new theories; they speak better to the reasons why many students (Ney included) want to study physics in the first place. The implied metaphilosophy here is fascinating and it would be good to see it developed further in subsequent work: Ney seems to reject the mainstream modern approach to ontology (in which these pragmatic virtues are not obviously relevant to the truth of wave function realism) in favor of something neo-Carnapian where (so far as I can see) the goal of a quantum ontology is to help us get a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics, and that’s all there is to it. This also fits naturally with the pluralism she urges, in which approaches other than hers can also be valuable.Chapter 4—on relativistic generalizations of wavefunction realism—attempts both a conceptual and a technical task. The conceptual task is to argue that wavefunction realism per se is not wedded to any particular theory or choice of Hilbert-space basis within the theory: rather, wave function realism is any strategy that reifies a high-dimensional space in order to produce a separable local quantum ontology. If so, there is no block in principle to a relativistic generalization of the approach: we just need to find some appropriate high-dimensional space to describe the quantum state in relativistic quantum theory.The general philosophical point is well taken and convincingly defended (though it’s important to note that while arbitrary choices of Hilbert-space basis will give a separable theory, there is no reason to assume they will give a dynamically local theory: even something as simple as shifting from the position to the momentum basis in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics transforms the Schrödinger equation into something explicitly nonlocal). Unfortunately, I don’t think Ney succeeds in giving a clear statement of the high-dimensional space she has in mind for quantum field theory. This is one place where her laudable goal of making the book intelligible to nonspecialists becomes problematic: she makes many suggestive and interesting comments on quantum field theory, but there is no explicit, precise, mathematical statement of her view that can be contrasted with the explicit, precise, mathematical representation of the state in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics as a complex function on 3N-dimensional space.In the last part of the book—concerned with the emergence of ordinary three-dimensional ontology—Ney begins (chapter 5) by rebutting influential arguments by Tim Maudlin, Valia Allori, Sheldon Goldstein, and others that it is empirically incoherent for a physical theory not to make precise, nonemergent, nonderivative statements about matter in three-dimensional space (for a theory not to have a primitive ontology, to use the standard term for it). Ney argues—persuasively, to me—that it is perfectly compatible with the way science usually works for a theory to make statements about the observable only in an indirect, derivative way, so that while it might be a desideratum for a theory to have a primitive ontology, it is not compulsory for it to do so in order to be empirically adequate. She goes on, though, to note that a satisfactory quantum metaphysics had better recover the existence of ordinary three-dimensional objects, on Moorean grounds: we are really confident that those objects exist!Chapter 6 is largely critical: an extended exegesis of the functionalist strategy for recovering higher-order ontology developed by David Albert, myself, and others. She raises two main criticisms of the functionalist strategy: it fails to distinguish between the wave function simulating three-dimensional objects and constituting those objects; it is restricted to recovering classical three-dimensional ontology, whereas we want to recover quantum-mechanical phenomena in three dimensions too. (The former objection is a development of criticisms by Bradley Monton, Tim Maudlin, and others; the latter is novel so far as I know.) For reasons of space, I won’t attempt to reply on behalf of the functionalist, but Ney certainly puts the challenge with admirable clarity.The final chapter of the book presents Ney’s positive account of emergent ontology, based not on functionalism but on considerations of symmetry (though she concedes that the separation is not completely sharp). Simplifying Ney’s subtle position: the permutation symmetries of quantum mechanics give a clear dynamical reason to regard certain decompositions of 3N-dimensional space (intuitively: those that decompose it into the N-fold product of Euclidean space) as preferred; that then licenses the metaphysical hypothesis that a localized wave function in 3N-dimensional space has, as its parts, particles in three-dimensional space. If the wave function is not localized (as will be the case generically, at least for the Everett interpretation), then we can think of those particles as being partially localized in various different regions of space.I have to say that I am not convinced this works, at least without a dynamical-collapse mechanism: in the Everett interpretation, it will yield an ontology where all the particles are completely delocalized. We only see a somewhat localized description of matter in three dimensions when we restrict to an Everett branch, and that restriction is normally motivated on functionalist grounds. But this may simply reflect subtleties of Ney’s intriguing proposal that I am not fully grasping at present.In summary, I congratulate Ney for a rich, subtle, and provocative account of wave function realism. Her edited collection of papers (coedited with Albert), The Wave Function, set the agenda for much of the metaphysics of quantum mechanics in the 2010s; The World in the Wave Function has a good chance of doing the same for the 2020s.