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

Quantum ontologies

Henry Pierce Stapp

Published Dec 1, 1988• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Quantum ontologies are conceptions of the constitution of the universe that are compatible with quantum theory. The ontological orientation is contrasted to the pragmatic orientation of science, and reasons are given for considering quantum ontologies both within science, and in broader contexts. The principal quantum ontologies are described and evaluated. Invited paper at conference: Bell's Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe, George Mason University, October 20-21, 1988. 16 refs.

Related papers

An "anti-system" ontology of quantum physics, as derived from two Einstein's conceptions of physical theories. Quantum physics as a theory of general relativity of experimental context

Batard, Thierry

In glaring contrast to its indisputable century-old experimental success, the ultimate objects and meaning of quantum physics remain a matter of vigorous debate among physicists and philosophers of science. This article attempts to shed new light on the debate. It relies upon two comments by Albert Einstein on his general approach to physical theories. I draw their consequences for the definition of a physical theory's ontology, and next for the ontology of quantum physics - i.e. what it may ultimately be about. The quantum ontology thus derived appears to be strictly limited to evolving experimental contexts and instantaneous measurement outcomes, which are to be understood, respectively, as mere potential measurement outcomes and actual ones. The notions of material body in particular and physical system in general are absent from this ontology, hence the vanishing of Schroedinger's cat and EPR paradoxes, as well as of the quantum measurement problem. Apart from its ability to clear up well-known conundrums, this ontology reveals what quantum physics may fundamentally be - i.e. its possible ultimate meaning - namely a theory of general relativity of experimental context. On this basis, I conclude with a new conception of objectivity in the sciences of nature.

arXiv:1908.07338•Jul 31, 2019•0 citations

Reality, Causality, and Quantum Theory

John-Mark A. Allen

Quantum theory describes our universe incredibly successfully. To our classically-inclined brains, however, it is a bizarre description that requires a reimagining of what fundamental reality, or “ontology”, could look like. This thesis examines different ontological features in light of the success of quantum theory, what it requires, and what it rules out. While these investigations are primarily foundational, they also have relevance to quantum information, quantum communication, and experiments on quantum systems. The way that quantum theory describes the state of a system is one of its most unintuitive features. It is natural, therefore, to ask whether a similarly strange description of states is required on an ontological level. This thesis proves that almost all quantum superposition states for d > 3 dimensions must be real—that is, present in the ontology in a well-defined sense. This is a strong requirement which prevents intuitive explanations of the many quantum phenomena which are based on superpositions. A new theorem is also presented showing that quantum theory is incompatible with macro-realist ontologies, where certain physical quantities must always have definite values. This improves on the Leggett-Garg argument, which also aims to prove incompatibility with macro-realism but contains loopholes. Variations on both of these results that are error-tolerant (and therefore amenable to experimentation) are presented, as well as numerous related theorems showing that the ontology of quantum states must be somewhat similar to the quantum states themselves in various specific ways. Extending these same methods to quantum communication, a simple proof is found showing that an exponential number of classical bits are required to communicate a linear number of qubits. That is, classical systems are exponentially bad at storing quantum data. Causal influences are another part of ontology where quantum theory demands a revision of our classical notions. This follows from the outcomes of Bell experiments, as rigorously shown in recent analyses. Here, the task of constructing a native quantum framework for reasoning about causal influences is tackled. This is done by first analysing the simple example of a common cause, from which a quantum version of Reichenbach’s principle is identified. This quantum principle relies on an identification of quantum conditional independence which can be defined in four ways, each naturally generalising a corresponding definition for classical conditional independence. Not only does this allow one to reason about common causes in a quantum experiments, but it can also be generalised to a full framework of quantum causal models (mirroring how classical causal models generalise Reichenbach’s principle). This new definition of quantum causal models is illustrated by examples and strengthened by it’s foundation on a robust quantum Reichenbach’s principle. An unusual, but surprisingly fruitful, setting for considering quantum ontology is found by considering time travel to the past. This provides a testbed for different ontological concepts in quantum theory and new ways to compare classical and quantum frameworks. It is especially useful for comparing computational properties. In particular, time travel introduces non-linearity to quantum theory, which brings (sometimes implicit) ontological assumptions to the fore while introducing strange new abilities. Here, a model for quantum time travel is presented which arguably has fewer objectionable features than previous attempts, while remaining similarly well-motivated. This model is discussed and compared with previous quantum models, as well as with the classical case. Together, these threads of investigation develop a better understanding of how quantum theory affects possible ontologies and how ontological prejudices influence quantum theory.

arXiv:1901.01618•Jan 1, 2017•2 citations

Ontologies for Quantum Field Theory

Luca Gasparinetti, Aaron Collavini

ABSTRACT This paper provides an overview of the ontological frameworks proposed for Quantum Field Theory (QFT). It begins by examining the conceptual challenges inherent in developing an ontology for QFT and outlines three potential ontological strategies. Subsequently, it surveys the principal ontological approaches discussed in the literature.

Philosophy Compass•Nov 1, 2025•0 citations

George Mason Fall Workshop: Bell's theorem, quantum theory and conceptions of the universe. Proceedings of a Fall Workshop held at George Mason University Fairfax, October 21-22, 1988

Menas C. Kafatos

•Jan 1, 1989•0 citations

Ontology and Quantum Mechanics

N. D. Hari Dass

The issue of ontology in quantum mechanics, or equivalently the issue of the reality of the wave function is critically examined within standard quantum theory. It is argued that though no strict ontology is possible within quantum theory, ingenious measurement schemes may still make the notion of a FAPP ontology (ontology for all practical purposes) meaningful and useful. Quanta 2014; 3: 47–66.

arXiv:1406.4933•Quanta•Sep 23, 2014•1 citation

Four Scientific Sonnets: Celebrating George Mason University's Fall Workshop on Bell's Theorem, October 21, 22, 1988.

Robert P. O’Kell

Physics Essays•Mar 1, 1990•0 citations
Quantum ontologies are conceptions of the constitution of the universe that are compatible with quantum theory. The ontological orientation is contrasted to the pragmatic orientation of science, and reasons are given for considering quantum ontologies both within science, and in broader contexts. The principal quantum ontologies are described and evaluated. Invited paper at conference: Bell's Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe, George Mason University, October 20-21, 1988. 16 refs.
In glaring contrast to its indisputable century-old experimental success, the ultimate objects and meaning of quantum physics remain a matter of vigorous debate among physicists and philosophers of science. This article attempts to shed new light on the debate. It relies upon two comments by Albert Einstein on his general approach to physical theories. I draw their consequences for the definition of a physical theory's ontology, and next for the ontology of quantum physics - i.e. what it may ultimately be about. The quantum ontology thus derived appears to be strictly limited to evolving experimental contexts and instantaneous measurement outcomes, which are to be understood, respectively, as mere potential measurement outcomes and actual ones. The notions of material body in particular and physical system in general are absent from this ontology, hence the vanishing of Schroedinger's cat and EPR paradoxes, as well as of the quantum measurement problem. Apart from its ability to clear up well-known conundrums, this ontology reveals what quantum physics may fundamentally be - i.e. its possible ultimate meaning - namely a theory of general relativity of experimental context. On this basis, I conclude with a new conception of objectivity in the sciences of nature.
Quantum theory describes our universe incredibly successfully. To our classically-inclined brains, however, it is a bizarre description that requires a reimagining of what fundamental reality, or “ontology”, could look like. This thesis examines different ontological features in light of the success of quantum theory, what it requires, and what it rules out. While these investigations are primarily foundational, they also have relevance to quantum information, quantum communication, and experiments on quantum systems. The way that quantum theory describes the state of a system is one of its most unintuitive features. It is natural, therefore, to ask whether a similarly strange description of states is required on an ontological level. This thesis proves that almost all quantum superposition states for d > 3 dimensions must be real—that is, present in the ontology in a well-defined sense. This is a strong requirement which prevents intuitive explanations of the many quantum phenomena which are based on superpositions. A new theorem is also presented showing that quantum theory is incompatible with macro-realist ontologies, where certain physical quantities must always have definite values. This improves on the Leggett-Garg argument, which also aims to prove incompatibility with macro-realism but contains loopholes. Variations on both of these results that are error-tolerant (and therefore amenable to experimentation) are presented, as well as numerous related theorems showing that the ontology of quantum states must be somewhat similar to the quantum states themselves in various specific ways. Extending these same methods to quantum communication, a simple proof is found showing that an exponential number of classical bits are required to communicate a linear number of qubits. That is, classical systems are exponentially bad at storing quantum data. Causal influences are another part of ontology where quantum theory demands a revision of our classical notions. This follows from the outcomes of Bell experiments, as rigorously shown in recent analyses. Here, the task of constructing a native quantum framework for reasoning about causal influences is tackled. This is done by first analysing the simple example of a common cause, from which a quantum version of Reichenbach’s principle is identified. This quantum principle relies on an identification of quantum conditional independence which can be defined in four ways, each naturally generalising a corresponding definition for classical conditional independence. Not only does this allow one to reason about common causes in a quantum experiments, but it can also be generalised to a full framework of quantum causal models (mirroring how classical causal models generalise Reichenbach’s principle). This new definition of quantum causal models is illustrated by examples and strengthened by it’s foundation on a robust quantum Reichenbach’s principle. An unusual, but surprisingly fruitful, setting for considering quantum ontology is found by considering time travel to the past. This provides a testbed for different ontological concepts in quantum theory and new ways to compare classical and quantum frameworks. It is especially useful for comparing computational properties. In particular, time travel introduces non-linearity to quantum theory, which brings (sometimes implicit) ontological assumptions to the fore while introducing strange new abilities. Here, a model for quantum time travel is presented which arguably has fewer objectionable features than previous attempts, while remaining similarly well-motivated. This model is discussed and compared with previous quantum models, as well as with the classical case. Together, these threads of investigation develop a better understanding of how quantum theory affects possible ontologies and how ontological prejudices influence quantum theory.