On the Status of Primitive Ontology

Spontaneous collapse theories provide a promising solution to the measurement problem. But they also introduce a number of problems of their own concerning dimensionality, vagueness, and locality. In response to these problems, advocates of collapse theories have proposed various accounts of the primitive ontology of collapse theories—postulated underlying entities governed by the collapse theory and underwriting our observations. The most prominent of these are a mass density distribution over three-dimensional space, and a set of discrete “flash” events at space-time points. My argument here is that these primitive ontologies are redundant, in the sense that the structures exhibited by the primitive ontologies that allow them to solve the problems facing spontaneous collapse theories are also present in the wave function. But redundancy is not nonexistence; indeed, the fact that the relevant structures are already there in the wave function shows that the mass density ontology and the flash ontology exist whether they are explicitly postulated or not. By the same token, there is no need to decide between a wave function ontology, a mass density ontology and a flash ontology.

[1]  H. Everett "Relative State" Formulation of Quantum Mechanics , 1957 .

[2]  Angelo Bassi,et al.  Quantum Mechanics: Are there Quantum Jumps? and On the Present Status of Quantum Mechanics , 2006 .

[3]  Peter J. Lewis Quantum Mechanics, Orthogonality, and Counting , 1997, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[4]  J. Gilson The nature of a quantum state , 1986 .

[5]  B. Loewer,et al.  Wanted Dead or Alive: Two Attempts to Solve Schrodinger's Paradox , 1990, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.

[6]  Sheldon Goldstein,et al.  Reality and the Role of the Wavefunction in Quantum Theory , 2011, 1101.4575.

[7]  Roderich Tumulka,et al.  Many Worlds and Schrödinger’s First Quantum Theory , 2009, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[8]  Tim Maudlin,et al.  Quantum non-locality and relativity , 1994 .

[9]  E. Schrödinger,et al.  ARE THERE QUANTUM JUMPS? , 1952, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[10]  D. Dürr,et al.  Quantum equilibrium and the origin of absolute uncertainty , 1992, quant-ph/0308039.

[11]  B. Loewer,et al.  Tails of Schrödinger’s Cat , 1996 .

[12]  Bradley Monton,et al.  Quantum Mechanics and 3N‐Dimensional Space , 2006, Philosophy of Science.

[13]  More about Dynamical Reduction and the Enumeration Principle , 1999, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[14]  D. Bohm A SUGGESTED INTERPRETATION OF THE QUANTUM THEORY IN TERMS OF "HIDDEN" VARIABLES. II , 1952 .

[15]  David Wallace,et al.  Quantum Mechanics on Spacetime I: Spacetime State Realism , 2009, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[16]  Collapse and Relativity , 2006, quant-ph/0602208.

[17]  D. Albert Elementary Quantum Metaphysics , 1996 .

[18]  Craig Callender,et al.  One world, one beable , 2014, Synthese.

[19]  Carl G. Hempel,et al.  The theoretician's dilemma: a study in the logic of theory construction , 1958 .

[20]  Amie L. Thomasson Ontology Made Easy , 2014 .

[21]  J. Neumann Mathematische grundlagen der Quantenmechanik , 1935 .

[22]  W. Myrvold On peaceful coexistence: is the collapse postulate incompatible with relativity? , 2002 .

[23]  G. Ghirardi,et al.  Describing the macroscopic world: Closing the circle within the dynamical reduction program , 1994 .

[24]  Peter J. Lewis Four strategies for dealing with the counting anomaly in spontaneous collapse theories of quantum mechanics , 2003 .

[25]  V. Allori Primitive Ontology and the Structure of Fundamental Physical Theories , 2013 .

[26]  Peter J. Lewis Quantum Ontology: A Guide to the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics , 2016 .

[27]  Dimension and Illusion , 2010 .