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

European Journal for Philosophy of Science

Three arguments for wave function realism

Alyssa Ney

Published Oct 24, 2023• 13 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract Wave function realism is an interpretative framework for quantum theories which recommends taking the central ontology of these theories to consist of the quantum wave function, understood as a field on a high-dimensional space. This paper presents and evaluates three standard arguments for wave function realism, and clarifies the sort of ontological framework these arguments support.

DOI
10.1007/s13194-023-00554-5

Related papers

On The Methodological Arguments for Wave−Function Realism

Vera Matarese

The paper explores a particular line of objection against wave-function realism. This view, advocated by Bell (1987) and presently defended by Albert (1996), North (2013) and Ney (2016), claims that the quantum wave function is a high-dimensional physical field. Normally, wave-function realism has been criticized for its ontological commitments, which are regarded as empirically unsupportable in principle and as violating empirical coherence. In this paper, I investigate whether there are any methodological arguments for endorsing such an ontology and whether they are sound. In particular, I home in on and discuss three arguments that may be used to support wave-function realism: (i) the argument from laws; (ii) the argument from the complete information of the system; (iii) the argument from explanation. My conclusion is that these arguments do not provide any good methodological grounds for inferring the existence of a high-dimensional physical field from quantum theory.

International Studies in the Philosophy of Science•Apr 3, 2021•1 citation

The World in the Wave Function

Alyssa Ney

Abstract What are the ontological implications of quantum theories, that is, what do they tell us about the fundamental objects that make up our world? How should quantum theories make us reevaluate our classical conceptions of the basic constitution of material objects and ourselves? Is there fundamental quantum nonlocality? This book articulates several rival approaches to answering these questions, ultimately defending the wave function realist approach. Wave function realism is a way of interpreting quantum theories so that the central object they describe is the quantum wave function, interpreted as a field in an extremely high-dimensional space. According to this approach, the nonseparability and nonlocality we seem to find in quantum mechanics are ultimately manifestations of a more intuitive, separable, and local picture in higher dimensions.

•May 19, 2021•77 citations

Wave Function Realism in a Relativistic Setting

Alyssa Ney

The purpose of the present chapter is to respond to a thread of recent criticism against one candidate framework for interpreting quantum theories, a framework introduced and defended by David Albert and Barry Loewer: wave function realism, a framework for interpreting the ontology of quantum theories according to which what appears to be a nonseparable metaphysics ofentangled objects acting instantaneously across spatial distances is a manifestation of a more fundamental separable and local metaphysics in higher dimensions. Thechapterconsiders strategies for extending the wave function realist interpretation of quantum mechanics to the case of relativistic quantum theories, responding to arguments that this cannot be done.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Apr 30, 2020•5 citations

Varieties of Wave Function Realism, or, WTF is WFR?

Myrvold, Wayne C.

The phrase “Wave Function Realism” (WFR) has come to be used for a family of views according to which quantum theory motivates us to think that quantum wave functions are fields on a space of extremely high dimension, which is in some sense more fundamental that ordinary three-dimensional space or four-dimensional spacetime. With an aim at gaining clarity about the nature of the project, I distinguish between varieties of Wave Function Realism that one might hold. I focus on two axes of distinction. One has to do with the nature of the project. Is it an Interpretive project, one of accepting standard quantum theory pretty much as we have it, and exploring its implications for ontology? Or is it a Constructive project, which finds standard quantum theory wanting in crucial aspects, and seeks to construct a new theory that will satisfy some set of metaphysical constraints? The other has to do with how radical the claims are that are made about the nature of spacetime. Does the fundamental space on which the wave functions of WFR are defined have intrinsic structure corresponding to the low-dimensional spacetime structure? I call versions of WFR on which this is so “Mild” versions, as on such a view any sense in which the low-dimensional spatial structure is non-fundamental would be at best a highly attenuated one. A more radical view, which I call “Spicy,” has it that the fundamental space has no intrinsic structure corresponding to our low dimension spacetime, and that such structure is emergent from the structure and evolution of certain sort of wave functions. Judging from what they say about the view, it seems that proponents of WFR intend it to be Interpretive and Spicy. I will argue that there can be no such position. Standard quantum mechanics makes such heavy use of low-dimensional spacetime structure that an Interpretive version of WFR must be Extremely Mild. A Spicy but Constructive version has yet to be formulated.

•Apr 1, 2025•0 citations

The Argument from Entanglement

Alyssa Ney

Abstract In quantum mechanics, entangled states are not exotic or rare. Rather, entanglement is the norm and so the metaphysical consequences of entanglement are a central issue for anyone wishing to provide an ontological interpretation of the various formulations of quantum mechanics. This chapter presents the argument for wave function realism from quantum entanglement, which says that wave function realism is necessary if one wants an ontological interpretation that does not conflate distinct quantum states. It explains quantum entanglement and how postulating a wave function in higher dimensions can help to metaphysically ground the phenomenon. The chapter ultimately concludes that the argument from quantum entanglement fails as there are several rival positions that can also explain quantum entanglement and recover the distinctions between different entangled states. These include the primitive ontology approach, various other holisms, ontic structural realism, spacetime state realism, and the multi-field approach.

•May 19, 2021•0 citations

A Preliminary Case for Wave Function Realism

Alyssa Ney

Abstract This chapter explains the use of wave functions in quantum mechanics in order to develop a preliminary argument for wave function realism, one that is commonly found in the physics and philosophy of physics literature. It distinguishes ontological questions about the status of the wave function from the more discussed measurement problem for quantum mechanics, and explains how wave function realism is an approach to ontology that is compatible with several rival solutions to the measurement problem. The chapter then presents an initial, but not ultimately decisive, argument for wave function realism based on the ubiquity of wave function representations in quantum physics.

•May 19, 2021•0 citations
Abstract Wave function realism is an interpretative framework for quantum theories which recommends taking the central ontology of these theories to consist of the quantum wave function, understood as a field on a high-dimensional space. This paper presents and evaluates three standard arguments for wave function realism, and clarifies the sort of ontological framework these arguments support.
The paper explores a particular line of objection against wave-function realism. This view, advocated by Bell (1987) and presently defended by Albert (1996), North (2013) and Ney (2016), claims that the quantum wave function is a high-dimensional physical field. Normally, wave-function realism has been criticized for its ontological commitments, which are regarded as empirically unsupportable in principle and as violating empirical coherence. In this paper, I investigate whether there are any methodological arguments for endorsing such an ontology and whether they are sound. In particular, I home in on and discuss three arguments that may be used to support wave-function realism: (i) the argument from laws; (ii) the argument from the complete information of the system; (iii) the argument from explanation. My conclusion is that these arguments do not provide any good methodological grounds for inferring the existence of a high-dimensional physical field from quantum theory.
Abstract What are the ontological implications of quantum theories, that is, what do they tell us about the fundamental objects that make up our world? How should quantum theories make us reevaluate our classical conceptions of the basic constitution of material objects and ourselves? Is there fundamental quantum nonlocality? This book articulates several rival approaches to answering these questions, ultimately defending the wave function realist approach. Wave function realism is a way of interpreting quantum theories so that the central object they describe is the quantum wave function, interpreted as a field in an extremely high-dimensional space. According to this approach, the nonseparability and nonlocality we seem to find in quantum mechanics are ultimately manifestations of a more intuitive, separable, and local picture in higher dimensions.
The purpose of the present chapter is to respond to a thread of recent criticism against one candidate framework for interpreting quantum theories, a framework introduced and defended by David Albert and Barry Loewer: wave function realism, a framework for interpreting the ontology of quantum theories according to which what appears to be a nonseparable metaphysics ofentangled objects acting instantaneously across spatial distances is a manifestation of a more fundamental separable and local metaphysics in higher dimensions. Thechapterconsiders strategies for extending the wave function realist interpretation of quantum mechanics to the case of relativistic quantum theories, responding to arguments that this cannot be done.
The phrase “Wave Function Realism” (WFR) has come to be used for a family of views according to which quantum theory motivates us to think that quantum wave functions are fields on a space of extremely high dimension, which is in some sense more fundamental that ordinary three-dimensional space or four-dimensional spacetime. With an aim at gaining clarity about the nature of the project, I distinguish between varieties of Wave Function Realism that one might hold. I focus on two axes of distinction. One has to do with the nature of the project. Is it an Interpretive project, one of accepting standard quantum theory pretty much as we have it, and exploring its implications for ontology? Or is it a Constructive project, which finds standard quantum theory wanting in crucial aspects, and seeks to construct a new theory that will satisfy some set of metaphysical constraints? The other has to do with how radical the claims are that are made about the nature of spacetime. Does the fundamental space on which the wave functions of WFR are defined have intrinsic structure corresponding to the low-dimensional spacetime structure? I call versions of WFR on which this is so “Mild” versions, as on such a view any sense in which the low-dimensional spatial structure is non-fundamental would be at best a highly attenuated one. A more radical view, which I call “Spicy,” has it that the fundamental space has no intrinsic structure corresponding to our low dimension spacetime, and that such structure is emergent from the structure and evolution of certain sort of wave functions. Judging from what they say about the view, it seems that proponents of WFR intend it to be Interpretive and Spicy. I will argue that there can be no such position. Standard quantum mechanics makes such heavy use of low-dimensional spacetime structure that an Interpretive version of WFR must be Extremely Mild. A Spicy but Constructive version has yet to be formulated.
Abstract In quantum mechanics, entangled states are not exotic or rare. Rather, entanglement is the norm and so the metaphysical consequences of entanglement are a central issue for anyone wishing to provide an ontological interpretation of the various formulations of quantum mechanics. This chapter presents the argument for wave function realism from quantum entanglement, which says that wave function realism is necessary if one wants an ontological interpretation that does not conflate distinct quantum states. It explains quantum entanglement and how postulating a wave function in higher dimensions can help to metaphysically ground the phenomenon. The chapter ultimately concludes that the argument from quantum entanglement fails as there are several rival positions that can also explain quantum entanglement and recover the distinctions between different entangled states. These include the primitive ontology approach, various other holisms, ontic structural realism, spacetime state realism, and the multi-field approach.
Abstract This chapter explains the use of wave functions in quantum mechanics in order to develop a preliminary argument for wave function realism, one that is commonly found in the physics and philosophy of physics literature. It distinguishes ontological questions about the status of the wave function from the more discussed measurement problem for quantum mechanics, and explains how wave function realism is an approach to ontology that is compatible with several rival solutions to the measurement problem. The chapter then presents an initial, but not ultimately decisive, argument for wave function realism based on the ubiquity of wave function representations in quantum physics.