Abstract Deep scientific realism is scientific realism plus the claim that science requires a metaphysical interpretation. Metaphysics is supposed to fill an intelligibility gap: science by itself, it is argued, does not provide a clear image of reality. The metaphysics needed to deliver the goods comes from a toolbox of concepts furnished by free range metaphysics. Such concepts are developed in connection with a world that is familiar to us, and by being applied to science, they carry this familiarity to the most unfamiliar confines of reality. This article examines the prospects of such a strategy. Focusing on the case of quantum objects’ (non-)individuality, it argues that deep realism fails to deliver the promised intelligibility. Construing quantum entities as non-individuals faces an empty toolbox, ‘non-individuality’ being too closely attached to quantum mechanics itself. Dressing quantum entities as individuals distorts the usual familiarity brought by the concept of individuality, since it now has to conform to the unusual demands of quantum mechanics to the point of being unrecognizable. Instead of enhancing our grasp of quantum reality, the imposition of metaphysical categories risks producing not understanding, but metaphysical misunderstanding.
Abstract Deep scientific realism is scientific realism plus the claim that science requires a metaphysical interpretation. Metaphysics is supposed to fill an intelligibility gap: science by itself, it is argued, does not provide a clear image of reality. The metaphysics needed to deliver the goods comes from a toolbox of concepts furnished by free range metaphysics. Such concepts are developed in connection with a world that is familiar to us, and by being applied to science, they carry this familiarity to the most unfamiliar confines of reality. This article examines the prospects of such a strategy. Focusing on the case of quantum objects’ (non-)individuality, it argues that deep realism fails to deliver the promised intelligibility. Construing quantum entities as non-individuals faces an empty toolbox, ‘non-individuality’ being too closely attached to quantum mechanics itself. Dressing quantum entities as individuals distorts the usual familiarity brought by the concept of individuality, since it now has to conform to the unusual demands of quantum mechanics to the point of being unrecognizable. Instead of enhancing our grasp of quantum reality, the imposition of metaphysical categories risks producing not understanding, but metaphysical misunderstanding.
According to scientific realism, science gives us an approximately true description of what the world is like. But what does it mean? In this chapter, we focus on the ontological and metaphysical aspects of this discussion. That is, we are concerned with the following questions: what there is, according to our best scientific theories? And how are these things that theories say exist? We start from the assumption that a genuine scientific realism must deal with these issues. Taking non-relativistic quantum mechanics as a case study, we discuss some of the challenges currently faced by a genuinely realistic stance. We argue, first, that in the ontological aspect, realists are in the same boat as science, that is, without sufficient epistemic justification to adopt the belief in the entities postulated by a single quantum theory, given that experience (currently) is not able to decide between rival theories; in the metaphysical aspect, realists also encounter problems with theory choice, given the possibility of associating more than one metaphysical theory with the description of the entities postulated by each quantum theory. The same goes for structuralist alternatives, since, even if we accept that scientific theories are committed to the existence of structures, but not objects, we still do not know what structures are, metaphysically. Finally, we move forward in the discussion with the meta-Popperian method, which serves to reduce the metaphysical alternatives associated with the ontological postulates of scientific theories. We may not know what the correct alternative is, but we have been able to progressively check which metaphysical alternatives are incompatible with each scientific theory.
Traditionally, to be a realist about something means believing in the independent existence of that something. In this line of thought, a scientific realist is someone who believes in the objective existence of the entities postulated by our best scientific theories. In metaphysical terms, what does that mean? In ontological terms, i.e., in terms about what exists, scientific realism can be understood as involving the adoption of an ontology that is scientifically informed. But according to some philosophers, the realistic attitude must go beyond ontology. The way in which this requirement has been understood involves providing a metaphysics for the entities postulated by science, that is, answering questions about the nature of what ontology admits to exist. We discuss how two fashionable approaches face the challenge of providing a metaphysics for science: a form of naturalism and the Viking/Toolbox approach. Finally, we present a third way, which adopts the best of both approaches: the meta-Popperian method, which focuses on discarding the wrong alternatives, or better saying, the metaphysical profiles incompatible with certain theories. We present the meta-Popperian method, a metametaphysical method capable of objectively assessing which metaphysical profiles are incompatible with certain scientific theories. For this, we will use quantum mechanics as a case study, presenting some previously obtained results. As our focus is on methodological questions about the relationship between metaphysics and science; with this method, we can see how science can be used to avoid error in metaphysical issues. In our opinion, this would be a way to develop a productive relationship between science and metaphysics.
We discuss some methodological aspects of the relation between physics and metaphysics by dealing specifically with the case of non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Our main claim is that current attempts to productively integrate quantum mechanics and metaphysics are best seen as approaches of what should be called `the metaphysics of science', which is developed by applying already existing metaphysical concepts to scientific theories. We argue that, in this perspective, metaphysics must be understood as an autonomous discipline. It results that this metaphysics cannot hope to derive any kind of justification from science. Thus, one of the main motivations of such project, which is the obtaining of a scientifically respectable justification for the attribution of a single true metaphysical profile to the posits of a scientific theory, is doomed because of the emergence of metaphysical underdetermination from the outset. If metaphysics floats free from physics, which is a premise of such project of integration between these two areas, then it is always possible to attribute more than one metaphysical profile to dress physical entities.
Philosophers of science commonly connect ontology and science, stating that these disciplines maintain a two-way relationship: on the one hand, we can extract ontology from scientific theories; on the other hand, ontology provides the realistic content of our scientific theories. In this article, we will critically examine the process of naturalizing ontology, i.e., confining the work of ontologists merely to the task of pointing out which entities certain theories commit themselves to. We will use non-relativistic quantum mechanics as a case study. We begin by distinguishing two roles for ontology: the first would be characterized by cataloging existing entities according to quantum mechanics; the second would be characterized by establishing more general ontological categories in which existing entities must be classified. We argue that only the first step is available for a naturalistic approach; the second step not being open for determination or anchoring in science. Finally, we also argue that metaphysics is still a step beyond ontology, not contained in either of the two tasks of ontology, being thus even farther from science.
Abstract The issue about the nature of quantum systems usually hinges on the category of individual: the question is whether this category can be applied to understand the peculiarities of quantum behavior. However, some metaphysical subtleties are commonly overlooked in this discussion. What is the difference between the notions of object and of individual? What metaphysical principles are quantum systems supposed to fulfill? What ontological kinds of properties are involved in the quantum domain? These questions should be taken into account when the issue at stake is the ontological nature of quantum systems and, more generally, the structure of the quantum realm. In order to address these and other metaphysical questions, different ontological distinctions that are scarcely taken into account in the debate are brought to the fore in this chapter. In light of these distinctions, the ontological challenges that quantum mechanics poses to the ontological picture presupposed by traditional metaphysics will be discussed in the following chapter.
Scientific realism is the view that our best scientific theories can be regarded as (approximately) true. This is connected with the view that science, physics in particular, and metaphysics could (and should) inform one another: on the one hand, science tells us what the world is like, and on the other hand, metaphysical principles allow us to select between the various possible theories which are underdetermined by the data. Nonetheless, quantum mechanics has always been regarded as, at best, puzzling, if not contradictory. As such, it has been considered for a long time at odds with scientific realism, and thus a naturalized quantum metaphysics was deemed impossible. Luckily, now we have many quantum theories compatible with a realist interpretation. However, scientific realists assumed that the wave-function, regarded as the principal ingredient of quantum theories, had to represent a physical entity, and because of this they struggled with quantum superpositions. In this paper I discuss a particular approach which makes quantum mechanics compatible with scientific realism without doing that. In this approach, the wave-function does not represent matter which is instead represented by some spatio-temporal entity dubbed the primitive ontology: point-particles, continuous matter fields, space-time events. I argue how within this framework one develops a distinctive theory-construction schema, which allows to perform a more informed theory evaluation by analyzing the various ingredients of the approach and their inter-relations.