Abstract
AbstractThe question of whether Everettian quantum mechanics (EQM) justifies the existence of metaphysical indeterminacy has recently come to the fore. Metaphysical indeterminacy has been argued to emerge from three sources: coherent superpositions, the indefinite number of branches in the quantum multiverse and the nature of these branches. This paper reviews the evidence and concludes that those arguments don’t rely on EQM alone and rest on metaphysical auxiliary assumptions that transcend the physics of EQM. We show how EQM can be ontologically interpreted without positing metaphysical indeterminacy by adopting a deflationary attitude towards branches. Two ways of developing the deflationary view are then proposed: one where branches are eliminated, and another where they are reduced to the universal quantum state.
Funder
Swiss National Science Foundation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,Philosophy
Reference38 articles.
1. Albert, D. Z. (1994). Quantum mechanics and experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Arndt, M., & Hornberger, K. (2014). Testing the limits of quantum mechanical superpositions. Nature Physics, 10(4), 271–277.
3. Bacciagaluppi, G. (2020). The role of decoherence in quantum mechanics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2020 ed.). Metaphysics research lab, Stanford University.
4. Barnes, E. (2014). Fundamental indeterminacy. Analytic Philosophy, 55(4), 339–362.
5. Baron, S., & Le Bihan, B. (2022). Spacetime quietism in quantum gravity. In A. Vassallo (Ed.), The foundations of spacetime physics: Philosophical perspectives (pp. 155–175). New York: Routledge.