ψ-Ontology, or, Making Sense of Quantum Mechanics

Sergey N. Zharov

Aristotle was the first to notice that entity exists not only as real, but also as pos­sible. The Aristotelian concept of possibility has an insufficiently clear ontologi­cal sense. Aristotle does not ask about own Being of possibilities. For a classical thought it had no essential importance. In quantum physics the situation is differ­ent. Quantum possibilities have own action, so, it is necessary to recognize their own Being. However, it cannot be made within usual thinking, since quantum possibilities do not allow representation in terms of an entity present-at-hand. It sends us to Heidegger’s ideas. Classical philosophical thought does not notice an ontological difference between the “Being” and “Entity”; as a result “Being” is presented as “something”. Heidegger showed simplified nature of such ap­proach, however the natural sciences usually accept the specified identification. A surprising exception is the quantum mechanics. Having recognized own Being of quantum possibilities, we will see the attribute of Heidegger’s ontology. This “Being” is not “Something” and is designated by me as “Ψ-Being”. It possesses the internal temporality similar to existential time of Dasein. Also the difference between “Ψ-Being” and “Being” of Heidegger’s ontology is detected. The fact is that “Ψ-Being possesses action which is capable to change definiteness of quan­tum entity. It offers a heuristic prospect for philosophical ontology. According to Heidegger, Dasein is the existential Being of possibilities. However, these possibilities are not connected with personal definiteness. But the quantum me­chanics shows us that definiteness of “entity” (“something” or “who”) can change under the influence of “Being” that cannot be imagined in terms of “something”.

Shan Gao

Valia Allori

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.

Shan Gao

Michael Epperson

Jonte R. Hance, JG Rarity, J Ladyman

In discussion of the interpretation of quantum mechanics the terms ‘ontic’ and ‘epistemic’ are often used in the sense of pertaining to what exists, and pertaining to cognition or knowledge respectively. The terms are also often associated with the formal definitions given by Harrigan and Spekkens for the wavefunction in quantum mechanics to be �ψ-ontic or �ψ-epistemic in the context of the ontological models framework. The formal definitions are contradictories, so that the wavefunction can be either ψ�-epistemic or ψ �-ontic but not both. However, we argue, nothing about the informal ideas of epistemic and ontic interpretations rules out wavefunctions representing both reality and knowledge. The implications of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph theorem and many other issues may be rethought in the light of our analysis.