Pré-publicação
Seção temática

On a Bohmian Structural Approach without Space Fundamentality

PDF (English)
  • Jorge Manero
Jorge Manero
Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.
##plugins.themes.classic.biography##
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36446/af.e1151

Publicado 2026-01-07

Creative Commons License

Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Resumo

In recent years, there has been a controversial debate in the literature regarding the choice among many interpretations of quantum mechanics. Based on certain realist desiderata, this debate has been partly addressed in the context of the choice between two opposite views about the mathematical space in which the fundamental ontology of this theory lives. Indeed, some scholars advocate a worldview in which this ontology lives in the abstract high-dimensional space, whilst others advocate a three-dimensional worldview, according to which the ontology lives in the physical space of our everyday experience. In this contribution, I will critically evaluate the tenability of solving the resulting underdetermination between the three/high-dimensional worldviews in the context of one particular quantum theory: the Bohmian approach. In so doing, I will be following two strategies: firstly, I will undermine the assumption that a set of theoretical or metaphysical virtues blocks the underdetermination problem associated with the mathematical space in which the fundamental Bohmian ontology lives; and secondly, I will propose a structural Bohmian interpretation through the use of dynamical symmetries (symplectic Lie groups), according to which the three/high-dimensional space distinction is just apparent as both spaces are grounded by the same dynamical, group-theoretic structure.

PDF (English)

Referências

  1. Acuña, P., & Dieks, D. (2014). Another look at empirical equivalence and underdetermination of theory choice. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 4(2), 153-180.
  2. Albert, D. (1996). Elementary quantum metaphysics. In J. Cushing, A. Fine, & S. Goldstein (Eds.), Bohmian mechanics and quantum theory: An appraisal (pp. 277-284). Springer.
  3. Albert, D. (2013). Wave function realism. In A. Ney & D. Albert (Eds.), The wave function: Essays on the metaphysics of quantum mechanics (pp. 52-57). Oxford University Press.
  4. Albert, D. (2015). After physics. Harvard University Press.
  5. Allori, V. (2013). Primitive ontology and the structure of fundamental physical theories. In A. Ney & D. Albert (Eds.), The wave function: Essays on the metaphysics of quantum mechanics (pp. 58-75). Oxford University Press.
  6. Allori, V. (2017). Scientifıc realism and primitive ontology or: The pessimistic induction and the nature of the wave function. Lato Sensu: Revue De La Société De Philosophie Des Sciences, 5(1), 69-76. https://doi.org/10.20416/lsrsps.v5i1.10
  7. Barrett, J. (2019). The conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics. Oxford University Press.
  8. Baublitz, M., & Shimony, A. (1996). Tension in Bohm’s interpretation of quantum mechanics. In J. Cushing, A. Fine, & S. Goldstein (Eds.), Bohmian mechanics and quantum theory: An appraisal (pp. 251-264). Springer.
  9. Bell, J. (1971). Introduction to the hidden-variable question. In A. Aspect (Ed.), Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics (pp. 29-39). Cambridge University Press.
  10. Bell, J. (1981). Quantum mechanics for cosmologists. In A. Aspect (Ed.), Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics (pp. 117-138). Cambridge University Press.
  11. Belousek, D. (2003). Formalism, ontology and methodology in Bohmian mechanics. Foundations of Science, 8(2), 109-172. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023925900377
  12. Bennett, K. (2009). Composition, colocation and metaontology. In D. Chalmers, D. Manley & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics (pp. 38-76). Oxford University Press.
  13. Bohm, D. (1952a). A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables I. Physical Review, 85(2), 166-179.
  14. Bohm, D. (1952b). A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables II. Physical Review, 85(2), 180-193.
  15. Bohm, D., & Hiley, B. (1993). The undivided universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory. Routledge.
  16. Bonk, T. (2008). Underdetermination: An essay on evidence and the limits of natural knowledge (Vol. 261). Springer Science & Business Media.
  17. Bricker, P. (2020). Modal matters: Essays in metaphysics. Oxford University Press.
  18. Cameron, R. (2008). Truthmakers and ontological commitment: Or how to deal with complex objects and mathematical ontology without getting into trouble. Philosophical Studies, 140, 1-18.
  19. Cohen, J., & Callender, C. (2009). A better best system account of lawhood. Philosophical Studies, 145, 1-34.
  20. de Gosson, M. (2001). The principles of Newtonian and quantum mechanics: The need for Planck’s constant h. Imperial College Press.
  21. De Regt, H., & Dieks, D. (2005). A contextual approach to scientifıc understanding (Vol. 144). Synthese.
  22. Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., & Zanghì, N. (1992). Quantum equilibrium and the origin of absolute uncertainty. Journal of Statistical Physics, 67(5), 843-907.
  23. Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., & Zanghì, N. (1995). Bohmian mechanics and the meaning of the wave function. In R. Cohen, M. Horne & J. Stachel (Eds.), Experimental metaphysics: Quantum mechanical studies for Abner Shimony (Vol. 1, pp. 25-38). Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science.
  24. Eddington, A. (1941). Discussion: Group structure in physical science. Mind, 50, 268-279.
  25. Esfeld, M. (2014). The primitive ontology of quantum physics: Guidelines for an assessment of the proposals. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 47, 99-106.
  26. Esfeld, M., & Deckert, D. (2017). A minimalist ontology of the natural world. Routledge.
  27. French, S. (2014). The structure of the world: Metaphysics and representation. Oxford University Press.
  28. Goldstein, S., & Zanghì, N. (2013). Reality and the role of the wavefunction in quantum theory. In A. Ney & D. Albert (Eds.), The wave function: Essays on the metaphysics of quantum mechanics (pp. 263-278). Oxford University Press.
  29. Greenberger, D. (2001). Inadequacy of the usual Galilean transformation in quantum mechanics. Physical Review Letters, 87(10), 1004051-1004054.
  30. Holland, P. (1993). The quantum theory of motion: An account of the de Broglie-Bohm causal interpretation of quantum mechanics. Cambridge University Press.
  31. Howard, D. (2011). Are elementary particles individuals? A critical appreciation of Steven French and Décio Krause’s Identity in Physics: A Historical, Philosophical, and Formal Analysis. Metascience, 20(2), 225-231.
  32. Hubert, M., & Romano, D. (2017). The wave-function as a multi-fıeld. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 8(3), 521-537.
  33. Kriegel, U. (2013). The epistemological challenge of revisionary metaphysics. Philosophers’ Imprint, 13(12), 1-30.
  34. Ladyman, J., Ross, D., & Spurrett, D. (2007). Every thing must go: Metaphysics naturalized. Oxford University Press.
  35. Laudan, L. (1990). Demystifying underdetermination. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 14, 267-297.
  36. Loewer, B. (1996). Humean supervenience. Philosophical Topics, 24(1), 101-126.
  37. Manero, J. (2024). On the existence of a preserved ontology posited by a high-dimensional Bohmian interpretation. Foundations of Science, 29, 1121-1142.
  38. Maudlin, T. (2019). Philosophy of physics: Quantum theory. Princeton University Press.
  39. Monton, B. (2006). Quantum mechanics and 3N-dimensional space. Philosophy of Science, 73(5), 778-789.
  40. Ney, A. (2015). Fundamental physical ontologies and the constraint of empirical coherence: A defense of wave function realism. Synthese, 192(10), 3105-3124.
  41. Ney, A. (2017). Locality and wave function realism. In O. Lombardi, S. Fortin, C. López, & F. Holik (Eds.), Realism, wave function, and primitive ontology (pp. 164-182). Cambridge University Press.
  42. Norsen, T., Marian, D., & Oriols, X. (2015). Can the wave function in confıguration space be replaced by single- particle wave functions in physical space? Synthese, 192(10), 3125-3151.
  43. Quine, W. (1948). On what there is. The Review of Metaphysics, 2(1), 21-38.
  44. Quine, W. (1975). On empirically equivalent systems of the world. Erkenntnis, 9, 313-328.
  45. Roberts, B. (2011). Group structural realism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62(1), 47-69.
  46. Solé, A. (2013). Bohmian mechanics without wave function ontology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44(4), 365-378.
  47. Suárez, M. (2015). Bohmian dispositions. Synthese, 192(10), 3203-3228.
  48. Valentini, A. (1992). On the pilot-wave theory of classical, quantum and subquantum physics. PhD. diss: International School for Advanced Studies.
  49. van Fraassen, B. (1991). Quantum mechanics: An empiricist view. Clarendon Press Oxford.
  50. Weyl, H. (1931). The theory of groups and quantum mechanics. Dover.