A Proposal for a Coherent Ontology of Fundamental Entities
- 5 Downloads
We argue that the distinction between framework and interaction theories should be taken carefully into consideration when dealing with the philosophical implications of fundamental theories in physics. In particular, conclusions concerning the nature of reality can only be consistently derived from assessing the ontological and epistemic purport of both types of theories. We put forward an epistemic form of realism regarding framework theories, such as Quantum Field Theory. The latter, indeed, informs us about the general properties of quantum fields, laying the groundwork for interaction theories. Yet, concerning interaction theories, we recommend a robust form of ontological realism regarding the entities whose existence is assumed by these theories. As an application, we refer to the case of the Standard Model, so long as it has proved to successfully inform us about the nature of various sorts of fundamental particles making up reality. In short, although we acknowledge that both framework and interaction theories partake in shaping our science-based view of reality, and that neither would do by itself the work we expect them to accomplish together, our proposal for a coherent ontology of fundamental entities advances a compromise between two forms of realism about theories in each case.
KeywordsPrinciple theory Constructive Theory Ontology Quantum Field Theory Particles
- Costello, K. (2011). Renormalization and effective field theory (Vol. 170). Providence: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
- Eddington, A. (2012). The nature of the physical world: Gifford lectures (1927). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Einstein, A. (1919). Time, space, and gravitation. Times (London), pp. 13–14.Google Scholar
- Faye, J. (2014). Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Fall 2014 edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/qm-copenhagen/.
- Goldstein, S. (2013). Bohmian mechanics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Spring 2013 edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/qm-bohm/.
- Griffiths, R. B. (2014). The consistent histories approach to quantum mechanics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Fall 2014 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-consistent-histories/.
- Haag, R. (2012). Local quantum physics: Fields, particles, algebras. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Howard, D. A. (2015). Einstein’s philosophy of science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Winter 2015 edition) Google Scholar
- Kragh, H. (2002). Quantum generations: A history of physics in the twentieth century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Ladyman, J., Ross, D., Spurrett, D., & Collier, J. G. (2007). Every thing must go: Metaphysics naturalized. Oxford University Press on Demand.Google Scholar
- Laudisa, F., & Rovelli, C. (2013). Relational quantum mechanics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Summer 2013 edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/.
- Peskin, M. E. (1995). An introduction to quantum field theory. Westview Press.Google Scholar
- Vaidman, L. (2016). Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Spring 2016 edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2002/entries/qm-manyworlds/.
- Weinberg, S. (2005). The quantum theory of fields (Vol. 1). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar