We put forward a new, ‘coherentist’ account of quantum entanglement, according to which entangled systems are characterized by symmetric relations of ontological dependence among the component particles. We compare this coherentist viewpoint with the two most popular alternatives currently on offer—structuralism and holism—and argue that it is essentially different from, and preferable to, both. In the course of this article, we point out how coherentism might be extended beyond the case of entanglement and further articulated.
We put forward a new, ‘coherentist’ account of quantum entanglement, according to which entangled systems are characterized by symmetric relations of ontological dependence among the component particles. We compare this coherentist viewpoint with the two most popular alternatives currently on offer—structuralism and holism—and argue that it is essentially different from, and preferable to, both. In the course of this article, we point out how coherentism might be extended beyond the case of entanglement and further articulated.
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.
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?
Abstract Quantum mechanics is often said to entail holism—that wholes are more than just the sum of their parts—and hence violate Humean supervenience. Certainly an entangled state cannot readily be interpreted in terms of the properties of the individual particles involved. But there is no clear general argument from quantum mechanics to holism. Still, each of the three major interpretations of quantum mechanics—Bohm, GRW, and many worlds—embodies some form of holism. One might try to rescue Humean supervenience by moving to high-dimensional representation of physical systems, or by constructing a theory with backward-in-time causation, but it is unclear if such strategies will succeed. If holism is accepted, some argue further that there are no individuals at the fundamental physical level: Either relations are fundamental, or the whole universe is fundamental. The arguments for these positions are assessed and found to be wanting.
Concept of quantum entanglement, its role in physics, philosophy, and in updating general worldview are studied in this article. It is pointed out that Schrodinger introduced this concept and some derivatives from it into description of physical reality in the 1935 article in the context of discussion around the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment, but in the related 1936 publication he did not use them. Taking into account the concepts of a mixture and statistical operator, which were introduced by von Neumann and borrowed by Schrödinger, it is shown that the concept of entanglement is not necessary in quantum mechanics unconditionally. At a certain moment of development of the complex quantum systems theory, this concept and its derivatives served as not very successful substitutes for the concepts of a mixture, situation of a mixture. Comparative analysis of some Schrödinger’s, von Neumann’s, and Landau’s theoretical works concludes that imagination of a complex quantum system as a quasi-mechanical aggregate was gradually being overcome; its objective wholeness was being substantiated instead. Therefore, wholeness is inherent not only to quantum phenomena, but also to quantum systems by itself, objectively. By the essence, just the attempt to think this circumstance had brought into life the concept of quantum entanglement. The concept of a mixture and its substitutes – the concepts of entangled state, entanglement, etc. – have not only the scientific but some metaphysical meaning as well: they prove the possibility of rational thinking of wholeness, the reasonableness and effectiveness of rational holism. Therefore, the metaphysics of quantum entanglement in its correct understanding is a manifestation of the rational holism metaphysics. Complete explanation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment requires consideration of both these appearances of the quantum wholeness. One can say the essential result of long-term discussion of the EPR experiment is the exhaustive recognition of the quantum reality wholeness. A row of generalizations achieved by A. Alexandrov, I. Tsekhmistro, and D.Bohm are considered. Together with the completed study of the concept of quantum entanglement or Bohr's substantiation of the concept of undivided quantum phenomenon, they support irreducibility of physical reality, the Universe in general to any set of Democritian atoms and their countless combinations, aggregates. All this enriches and improves the understanding of the Universe as a real wholeness. Perhaps, this understanding will be newest substitution for the hitherto popular worldview in the spirit of Democritus.
Abstract Lam and Esfeld have argued that, within Bohmian mechanics, the wave function can be interpreted as a physical structure instantiated by the fundamental particles posited by the theory. Further, to characterize the nature of this structure, they appeal to the framework of Ontic Structural Realism (OSR), thereby proposing a structuralist interpretation of Bohmian mechanics. However, I shall point out that OSR denotes a family of distinct views, each of which maintains a different account about the relation between structures and objects, and entails a different kind of ontology. Thus, in this paper I will show how to articulate the structuralist approach to Bohmian Mechanics accordingly to the different standard versions of OSR, and I will evaluate these alternatives. Moreover, I will propose a novel and sui generis kind of structuralist interpretation of Bohmian Mechanics, based on the framework of metaphysical coherentism.
Quantum entanglement remains one of the most perplexing and foundational phenomena in quantum mechanics, demonstrating instantaneous correlations between particles regardless of distance. This article hypothesizes that quantum entanglement may serve not merely as an artifact of quantum systems but as a fundamental structural component of a broader multiversal framework. By synthesizing principles from quantum mechanics, theoretical physics, and cosmology, the argument is developed that entanglement might indicate the coexistence and interaction of parallel realities. Such a perspective challenges the conventional interpretation of entanglement as a closed-system phenomenon and posits it instead as an interdimensional tether across multiple universes. Though currently speculative and beyond empirical verification, this hypothesis opens a philosophical and theoretical avenue for reevaluating the implications of entanglement and the nature of reality itself. By reframing entanglement as a bridge rather than a boundary, the article explores whether the quantum world subtly encodes the existence of the multiverse within its very correlations.