Forthcoming
Thematic section

Quantum Entanglement as an Internal Relation

PDF (Español (España))
  • Matías Daniel Pasqualini
Matías Daniel Pasqualini
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas / Instituto de Investigaciones “Dr. Adolfo Prieto”, Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Rosario, Argentina.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36446/af.e1122

Published 2025-12-24

Keywords

  • Entrelazamiento cuántico,
  • Relaciones internas,
  • Propiedades esenciales,
  • Estructuralismo,
  • Monismo,
  • Coherentismo
    • ...More
    Less
  • Quantum entanglement,
  • Internal relations,
  • Essential properties,
  • Structuralism,
  • Monism,
  • Coherentism
    • ...More
    Less
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Abstract

The metaphysical nature of quantum entanglement is a topic that has attracted the attention of philosophers of physics over the last decades. Entanglement has been characterized as a relation that does not supervene on non-relational properties of its relata. Furthermore, entanglement has been invoked to support some innovative metaphysical proposals, currently established in the metaphysics of science, such as structuralism, monism, and, more recently, coherentism. In this paper, a non-reductionist view of internal relations is defended. To do so, use is made of Fine’s analysis of propositions involving essential properties. Assuming that quantum entanglement is a widespread phenomenon, it is argued that it is preferable to consider quantum entanglement as an internal relation, in the sense of an essential relation. Entanglement thus considered can be adapted to different metaphysical frameworks: (1) as a fundamental internal relation it fits structuralism; (2) as a derived internal relation it fits monism; (3) as a dependence relation it conforms to coherentism.

PDF (Español (España))

References

  1. Armstrong, D. M. (1978). A theory of universals (Universals & scientific realism: volume II). Cambridge University Press.
  2. Aspect, A., Grangier, P. & Roger. G. (1982). Experimental realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A new violation of Bell’s inequalities. Physical Review Letters, 49(2), 91-94. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.91
  3. Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics, 1, 195-200. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195
  4. Bigaj, T. (2012). Entanglement of N distinguishable particles. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 27(40), 25-35.
  5. Calosi, C. (2014). Quantum mechanics and priority monism. Synthese, 191(5), 915-928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0300-6
  6. Calosi, C. (2020). Priority monism, dependence and fundamentality. Philosophical Studies, 177, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1177-5
  7. Calosi, C., & Morganti, M. (2021). Interpreting quantum entanglement: Steps towards coherentist quantum mechanics. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 72(3), 865-891. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axy064
  8. Cleland, C. E. (1984). Space: An abstract system of non-supervenient relations. Philosophical Studies, 46, 19-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00353489
  9. Cinti, E., Corti, A., & Sanchioni, M. (2022). On entanglement as a relation. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 12(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-021-00439-5
  10. Darby, G. (2012). Relational holism and Humean supervenience. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63(4), 773-788. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axr049
  11. Earman, J. (2015). Some puzzles and unresolved issues about quantum entanglement. Erkenntnis, 80, 303-337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9627-8
  12. Esfeld, M. (2004). Quantum entanglement and a metaphysics of relations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35, 601-617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2004.04.008
  13. Fine, K. (1994). Essence and modality. Philosophical Perspectives, Logic and Language, 8, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.2307/2214160
  14. Fine, K. (1995a). Ontological dependence. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 95, 269-290. https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/95.1.269
  15. Fine, K. (1995b). The logic of essence. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24(3), 241-273. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01344203
  16. French, S. (2006). Structure as a weapon of the realist. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 106(1), 169-187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2006.00143.x
  17. French, S. (2010). The interdependence of structure, objects, and dependence. Synthese, 175, 89-109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-010-9734-2
  18. French, S., & Krause, D. (2006). Identity in physics: A formal, historical and philosophical approach. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199278245.001.0001
  19. Ghirardi, G., Marinatto, L., & Weber, T. (2002). Entanglement and properties of composite quantum systems: A conceptual and mathematical analysis. Journal of Statistical Physics, 108, 49-122. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015439502289
  20. Healey, R. A. (1991). Holism and nonseparability. Journal of Philosophy, 88, 393-421. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026702
  21. Howard, D. (1989). Holism, separability, and the metaphysical implications of the Bell experiments. En J. T. Cushing & E. McMullin (Eds.), Philosophical consequences of quantum theory (pp. 224-253). University of Notre Dame Press,
  22. Ismael, J., & Schaffer, J. (2020). Quantum holism: Nonseparability as common ground. Synthese, 197, 4131-4160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1201-2
  23. Jaksland, R. (2021). Entanglement as the world-making relation: Distance from entanglement. Synthese, 198, 9661-9693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02671-7
  24. Ladyman, J., Ross, D., Spurrett, D., & Collier, J. (2007). Every thing must go: Metaphysics naturalized. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199276196.001.0001
  25. Lewis, D. (1986). Philosophical papers. Volume II. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026651
  26. Lowe, E. J. (1998). The possibility of metaphysics. Clarendon Press.
  27. MacBride, F. (2020). Relations. En E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relations/
  28. McKenzie, K. (2014). Priority and particle physics: Ontic structural realism as a fundamentality thesis. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 65(2), 353-380. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axt017
  29. Moore, G. E. (1919). External and internal relations. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 20, 40-62. https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/20.1.40
  30. Schaffer, J. (2009). On what grounds what. En D. Manley, D. J. Chalmers & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the foundations of ontology. Oxford University Press, 347-383. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199546046.003.0012
  31. Schaffer, J. (2010a). Monism: The priority of the whole. Philosophical Review, 119, 31-76. https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2009-025
  32. Schaffer, J. (2010b). The internal relatedness of all things. Mind, 119, 341-376. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzq033
  33. Tahko, T. E., & Lowe, E. J. (2020). Ontological dependence. En E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dependence-ontological/
  34. Teller, P. (1986). Relational holism and quantum mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 37, 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjps/37.1.71