Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–21 | Cite as

Quantum entanglement: a hylomorphic account

  • Matteo MorgantiEmail author
S.I.: Form, Structure and Hylomorphism

Abstract

In this paper, it is argued that Aristotelian hylomorphism can supply a useful and informative account of composite entities as these are described by physical theory. In particular, a hylomorphic account of quantum entangled systems is defined in detail, and compared to other alternatives currently on offer—in particular, ontic structural realism. In closing, it is suggested that the view of entanglement outlined here meshes well with a recently proposed ‘coherentist’ conception.

Keywords

Structure Hylomorphism Entanglement Composition Object Dependence Structural realism Disposition Coherentism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank the editors of this special issue for the opportunity, and the referees for their very useful advice. I am also grateful to Claudio Calosi, Mauro Dorato, Laura Felline and participants/audiences in Geneva, Neuchâtel, Rome and Urbino for useful discussions and feedback on material related to that of the present paper.

References

  1. Armstrong, D. M. (1978). A theory of universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bhogal, H., & Perry, Z. R. (2017). What the humean should say about entanglement. Noûs, 51, 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calosi, C., & Morganti, M. (2018). Interpreting quantum entanglement: Steps towards coherentist quantum mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axy064.Google Scholar
  4. Calosi, C., & Wilson, J. (2018). Quantum metaphysical indeterminacy. Philosophical Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1143-2.Google Scholar
  5. Dorato, M., & Esfeld, M. (2010). GRW as an ontology of dispositions. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41, 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Earman, J. (2015). Some puzzles and unresolved issues about quantum entanglement. Erkenntnis, 80, 303–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Esfeld, M. (2004). Quantum entanglement and a metaphysics of relations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35, 601–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Esfeld, M. (2009). The modal nature of structures in ontic structural realism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 23, 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Esfeld, M. & Deckert, D.-E. (with Lazarovici, D., Oldofredi, A. and Vassallo, A.) (2018). A minimalist ontology of the natural world. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Evnine, S.J. (2016). Making objects and events. A hylomorphic theory of artifacts, actions, and organisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fine, K. (1999). Things and their parts. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 23, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. French, S. (2014). The structure of the world: Metaphysics and representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Healey, R. (2016). Holism and nonseparability in physics. in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/physics-holism/.
  14. Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and philosophy. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  15. Henson, J. (2013). Non-separability does not relieve the problem of Bell’s theorem. Foundations of Physics, 43, 1008–10338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ismael, J., & Schaffer, J. (forthcoming). Quantum holism: Nonseparability as common ground. Synthese.Google Scholar
  17. Jaworski, W. (2014). Hylomorphism and the metaphysics of structure. Res Philosophica, 91, 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jaworski, W. (2016). Structure and the metaphysics of mind. How hylomorphism solves the mind-body problem,. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnston, M. (2006). Hylomorphism. Journal of Philosophy, 103, 652–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koslicki, K. (2008). The structure of objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ladyman, J. (1998). What is structural realism? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 29, 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ladyman, J., (2016). Structural realism. in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/structural-realism/.
  23. Ladyman, J., & Ross, D. (with Spurrett, D. and Collier, J.), (2007). Every thing must go. Metaphysics naturalised. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
  24. Linnebo, O. (2008). Structuralism and the notion of dependence. Philosophical Quarterly, 58, 59–79.Google Scholar
  25. Marmodoro, A. (2013). Aristotle’s hylomorphism without reconditioning. Philosophical Inquiry, 36, 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McKenzie, K., (2017). Structuralism in the idiom of determination. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axx061.Google Scholar
  27. Morganti, M. (2009). A new look at relational holism. Philosophy of Science, 76, 1027–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morganti, M. (2019). From ontic structural realism to metaphysical coherentism. European Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 9, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Popper, K. (1957). The propensity interpretation of the calculus of probability, and the quantum theory. In S. Körner (Ed.), Observation and interpretation: A symposium of philosophers and physicists (pp. 65–70). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  30. Rea, M. (2011). Hylomorphism reconditioned. Philosophical Perspectives, 25, 341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Renz, G. (2018). Form as structure: It’s not so simple. Ratio, 31, 20–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Suarez, M. (2004). Quantum selections, propensities and the problem of measurement. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55, 219–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Teller, P. (1986). Relational holism and quantum mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 37, 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Inwagen, P. (1990). Material Beings. Ithaca: New York.Google Scholar
  35. Van Raamsdonk, M. (2010). Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement. General Relativity and Gravitation, 42, 2323–2329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Communication and Performing ArtsUniversity of Rome TRERomeItaly

Personalised recommendations