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

Culturas Científicas

Una ontología modal de relaciones para la mecánica cuántica

Matias Daniel Pasqualini

Published Jul 31, 2023• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In correspondence with the modal interpretations of quantum mechanics, Lombardi and Castagnino (2008) and da Costa, Lombardi and Lastiri (2013) have proposed an ontology of bundles of possible intrinsic properties for quantum mechanics, focused mainly on the issues of quantum contextuality and indistinguishability. Corresponding to the interpretation known as "relational quantum mechanics" (Rovelli, 1996), two ontologies based on relations have been proposed. Laura Candiotto (2017) advocates for a radical metaphysics of relations, considered by the author as an instance of the so-called "ontic structural realism". Alternatively, Andrea Oldofredi (2021) proposes an ontology of bundles of relations, considered by the author as an instance of the so-called "moderate structural realism". Since the 1980s, the topic of quantum entanglement has led several authors (Teller, Healey, Howard, Esfeld) to defend that quantum mechanics involves a form of holism. It has been argued that the holism of quantum mechanics supports the metaphysical thesis known as "priority monism" (Schaffer, 2010a). In this article, an ontology of quantum mechanics is proposed in which the properties of quantum systems have both a modal and a relational character. As a result, a holistic ontology of quantum mechanics is obtained, which is an instance of priority monism and moderate structural realism.

DOI
10.35588/cc.v4i1.6151

Related papers

What Ontology for Relational Quantum Mechanics?

Mauro Dorato, Matteo Morganti

Abstract In this paper, we evaluate some proposals that have been put forward to clarify the ontological consequences of relational quantum mechanics. We first focus on priority monism and ontic structural realism and argue that these views are not suitable for providing an ontological interpretation of the theory. Then, we discuss an alternative interpretation that we regard as more promising, based on so-called ‘metaphysical coherentism’, which we also connect to the idea of an event-based, or ‘flash’, ontology.

Foundations of Physics•Jun 1, 2022•8 citations

Realismo Estructural Óntico: ¿Relaciones sin relata?

Ignacio Rojas

The aim of this work is to study the ontological thesis defended by Ontic Structural Realism, which, in general, states that the ontological commitments should be focused in the relations and not on objects. This would be a more coherent realist stance towards modern physical theories. In first place we will study the ontological conception defended by the Ontic Structural Realism, which, broadly speaking, postulates that the ontological focus should be placed on relations rather than on objects. This, in turn, would constitute a realistic interpretation of the current physical theories. Secondly, as a possible defense to the position stated by Ontic Structural Realism, the concept of non-supervenient relations will be studied and it will be argued that it is this type of relations that acquires a fundamental character in Quantum Mechanics, as, for example, in phenomena such as the so-called quantum entanglement.

Culturas Científicas•Dec 1, 2018•0 citations

The quantum ontology as a domain without objects

Bruno José Borge, Olímpia Lombardi

Standard quantum mechanics poses serious challenges to some principles deeply entrenched in traditional metaphysics. In particular, the theory defies the ontological category of individual object through three of its features: contextuality, non-separability, and indistinguishability. The difficulties have prompted the development of non-traditional ontological frameworks intended to account for the quantum domain. Some approaches advocate replacing the classical conception of a realm of objects endowed with properties by an ontology that either dispenses with the category of object altogether or treats it as a derivative notion. The Modal-Hamiltonian Interpretation (MHI) of quantum mechanics and Ontic Structural Realism (OSR) exemplify this position. MHI proposes an ontology in which quantum systems are non-objectual bundles of properties linked by definite physical relations. The OSR defends the ontological primacy of structures, within which objects are construed as nodes of relations. The aim of this article is to compare these two ontological approaches, highlighting both their points of convergence and their divergences, particularly in light of the ontological challenges posed by quantum mechanics. With this aim, the article is structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the ontology of MHI, introducing the distinction between type-properties and case-properties, characterizing quantum systems as non-objectual bundles, and analyzing the role of symmetry groups in providing physical content to the theory and governing actualization. Section 3 turns to OSR, examining its motivations, its distinction between physical and mathematical structures, and the modal character of structures. Section 4 offers a systematic comparison of the two approaches, considering their respective motivations and scope, their shared commitment to an object-free ontology, the role played by symmetry groups within each framework, and their contrasting interpretations of modality. Finally, Section 5 presents some concluding remarks.

•Jan 1, 2026•0 citations

“What is relational is real, and what is real is relational”: an ontological assessment of Relational Quantum Mechanics

Juan Carlos Vila

Abstract The following paper explores the metaphysical significance of Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM). For this, I will first outline Rovelli’s philosophical framework, and then offer a reconstruction of Rovelli’s seminal argument in favour of RQM. I will then explore some healthy lines of philosophical work that may be undertaken to strengthen RQM. First, I will frame RQM in the debate between realist and antirealist readings of QM and defend the general claim that RQM is compatible with realism. Then, I discuss the main ontological interpretations of RQM, which I classify as “dispositional”, “transcendental” and “structural”, and argue that all of them remain committed to substantialist assumptions that limit the radicality of Rovelli’s proposal. Finally, I analyse recent developments on RQM’s ontology and suggest that preserving its ontological originality requires an assessment on the concept of “pattern”.

•Sep 30, 2026•0 citations

The Bundle Theory Approach to Relational Quantum Mechanics

Andréa Oldofredi

The present essay provides a new metaphysical interpretation of Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) in terms of mereological bundle theory. The essential idea is to claim that a physical system in RQM can be defined as a mereological fusion of properties whose values may vary for different observers. Abandoning the Aristotelian tradition centered on the notion of substance, I claim that RQM embraces an ontology of properties that finds its roots in the heritage of David Hume. To this regard, defining what kind of concrete physical objects populate the world according to RQM, I argue that this theoretical framework can be made compatible with (i) a property-oriented ontology, in which the notion of object can be easily defined, and (ii) moderate structural realism, a philosophical position where relations and relata are both fundamental. Finally, I conclude that under this reading relational quantum mechanics should be included among the full-fledged realist interpretations of quantum theory.

arXiv:2011.10295•Foundations of Physics•Feb 1, 2021•29 citations

EPISTEMOLOGICAL VS. ONTOLOGICAL RELATIONALISM IN QUANTUM MECHANICS: RELATIVISM OR REALISM?

Christian DE RONDE, Raimundo Fernández Mouján

In this paper we investigate the history of relationalism and its present use in some interpretations of quantum mechanics. In the first part of this article we will provide a conceptual analysis of the relation between substantivalism, relationalism and relativism in the history of both physics and philosophy. In the second part, we will address some relational interpretations of quantum mechanics, namely, Bohr's relational approach, the modal interpretation by Kochen, the perspectival modal version by Bene and Dieks and the relational interpretation by Rovelli. We will argue that all these interpretations ground their understanding of relations in epistemological terms. By taking into account the analysis on the first part of our work, we intend to highlight the fact that there is a different possibility for understanding quantum mechanics in relational terms which has not been yet considered within the foundational literature. This possibility is to consider relations in (non-relativist) ontological terms. We will argue that such an understanding might be capable of providing a novel approach to the problem of representing what quantum mechanics is really talking about.

arXiv:1712.06477•Nov 20, 2018•9 citations
In correspondence with the modal interpretations of quantum mechanics, Lombardi and Castagnino (2008) and da Costa, Lombardi and Lastiri (2013) have proposed an ontology of bundles of possible intrinsic properties for quantum mechanics, focused mainly on the issues of quantum contextuality and indistinguishability. Corresponding to the interpretation known as "relational quantum mechanics" (Rovelli, 1996), two ontologies based on relations have been proposed. Laura Candiotto (2017) advocates for a radical metaphysics of relations, considered by the author as an instance of the so-called "ontic structural realism". Alternatively, Andrea Oldofredi (2021) proposes an ontology of bundles of relations, considered by the author as an instance of the so-called "moderate structural realism". Since the 1980s, the topic of quantum entanglement has led several authors (Teller, Healey, Howard, Esfeld) to defend that quantum mechanics involves a form of holism. It has been argued that the holism of quantum mechanics supports the metaphysical thesis known as "priority monism" (Schaffer, 2010a). In this article, an ontology of quantum mechanics is proposed in which the properties of quantum systems have both a modal and a relational character. As a result, a holistic ontology of quantum mechanics is obtained, which is an instance of priority monism and moderate structural realism.
Abstract In this paper, we evaluate some proposals that have been put forward to clarify the ontological consequences of relational quantum mechanics. We first focus on priority monism and ontic structural realism and argue that these views are not suitable for providing an ontological interpretation of the theory. Then, we discuss an alternative interpretation that we regard as more promising, based on so-called ‘metaphysical coherentism’, which we also connect to the idea of an event-based, or ‘flash’, ontology.
The aim of this work is to study the ontological thesis defended by Ontic Structural Realism, which, in general, states that the ontological commitments should be focused in the relations and not on objects. This would be a more coherent realist stance towards modern physical theories. In first place we will study the ontological conception defended by the Ontic Structural Realism, which, broadly speaking, postulates that the ontological focus should be placed on relations rather than on objects. This, in turn, would constitute a realistic interpretation of the current physical theories. Secondly, as a possible defense to the position stated by Ontic Structural Realism, the concept of non-supervenient relations will be studied and it will be argued that it is this type of relations that acquires a fundamental character in Quantum Mechanics, as, for example, in phenomena such as the so-called quantum entanglement.
Standard quantum mechanics poses serious challenges to some principles deeply entrenched in traditional metaphysics. In particular, the theory defies the ontological category of individual object through three of its features: contextuality, non-separability, and indistinguishability. The difficulties have prompted the development of non-traditional ontological frameworks intended to account for the quantum domain. Some approaches advocate replacing the classical conception of a realm of objects endowed with properties by an ontology that either dispenses with the category of object altogether or treats it as a derivative notion. The Modal-Hamiltonian Interpretation (MHI) of quantum mechanics and Ontic Structural Realism (OSR) exemplify this position. MHI proposes an ontology in which quantum systems are non-objectual bundles of properties linked by definite physical relations. The OSR defends the ontological primacy of structures, within which objects are construed as nodes of relations. The aim of this article is to compare these two ontological approaches, highlighting both their points of convergence and their divergences, particularly in light of the ontological challenges posed by quantum mechanics. With this aim, the article is structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the ontology of MHI, introducing the distinction between type-properties and case-properties, characterizing quantum systems as non-objectual bundles, and analyzing the role of symmetry groups in providing physical content to the theory and governing actualization. Section 3 turns to OSR, examining its motivations, its distinction between physical and mathematical structures, and the modal character of structures. Section 4 offers a systematic comparison of the two approaches, considering their respective motivations and scope, their shared commitment to an object-free ontology, the role played by symmetry groups within each framework, and their contrasting interpretations of modality. Finally, Section 5 presents some concluding remarks.
Abstract The following paper explores the metaphysical significance of Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM). For this, I will first outline Rovelli’s philosophical framework, and then offer a reconstruction of Rovelli’s seminal argument in favour of RQM. I will then explore some healthy lines of philosophical work that may be undertaken to strengthen RQM. First, I will frame RQM in the debate between realist and antirealist readings of QM and defend the general claim that RQM is compatible with realism. Then, I discuss the main ontological interpretations of RQM, which I classify as “dispositional”, “transcendental” and “structural”, and argue that all of them remain committed to substantialist assumptions that limit the radicality of Rovelli’s proposal. Finally, I analyse recent developments on RQM’s ontology and suggest that preserving its ontological originality requires an assessment on the concept of “pattern”.
The present essay provides a new metaphysical interpretation of Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) in terms of mereological bundle theory. The essential idea is to claim that a physical system in RQM can be defined as a mereological fusion of properties whose values may vary for different observers. Abandoning the Aristotelian tradition centered on the notion of substance, I claim that RQM embraces an ontology of properties that finds its roots in the heritage of David Hume. To this regard, defining what kind of concrete physical objects populate the world according to RQM, I argue that this theoretical framework can be made compatible with (i) a property-oriented ontology, in which the notion of object can be easily defined, and (ii) moderate structural realism, a philosophical position where relations and relata are both fundamental. Finally, I conclude that under this reading relational quantum mechanics should be included among the full-fledged realist interpretations of quantum theory.
In this paper we investigate the history of relationalism and its present use in some interpretations of quantum mechanics. In the first part of this article we will provide a conceptual analysis of the relation between substantivalism, relationalism and relativism in the history of both physics and philosophy. In the second part, we will address some relational interpretations of quantum mechanics, namely, Bohr's relational approach, the modal interpretation by Kochen, the perspectival modal version by Bene and Dieks and the relational interpretation by Rovelli. We will argue that all these interpretations ground their understanding of relations in epistemological terms. By taking into account the analysis on the first part of our work, we intend to highlight the fact that there is a different possibility for understanding quantum mechanics in relational terms which has not been yet considered within the foundational literature. This possibility is to consider relations in (non-relativist) ontological terms. We will argue that such an understanding might be capable of providing a novel approach to the problem of representing what quantum mechanics is really talking about.