Claudio Calosi

We provide a reply to the Argument from Intimacy on behalf of defenders of emergent spacetime in theories of quantum gravity. We argue that if one accepts that spacetime regions are nowhere in the sense that they are locations but do not have locations, then the Argument from Intimacy can be resolved. We go on to consider a problem with this response, namely that it is unavailable to super-substantivalists. We argue that this is right for identity but not priority super-substantivalists. We then suggest that there is no cost for our solution here, since identity versions of super-substantivalism face severe challenges in the context of spacetime emergence and so should be rejected anyway.

The arrow paradox is an argument purported to show that objects do not really move. The two main metaphysics of motion, the At–At theory of motion and velocity primitivism, solve the paradox differently. It is argued that neither solution is completely satisfactory. In particular it is contended that there are no decisive arguments in favor of the claim that velocity as it is constructed in the At–At theory is a truly instantaneous property, which is a crucial assumption to solve the paradox. If so the At–At theory faces the threat that most of our physical theories turn out to be non-Markovian. Finally it is considered whether all those threats and paradoxes are dispelled if only a new metaphysics of persistence is taken into account, namely four-dimensionalism.

Everyone who endorses the categorial distinction between objects and events must confront a general question: how do these two types of entities relate to one another? Here we are especially interested in what is typically regarded as the basic relational tie between the two, namely, that objects may be said to participate or take part in events, whereas events befall or happen to their participants. The exact nature of this participation relation is philosophically contentious and may depend on how the two categories of objects and events are construed in the first place. Regardless of its metaphysical characterization, however, a number of questions arise concerning its formal features and the general laws that govern its behavior. In particular, since both objects and events can be mereologically structured, we are interested in the formal laws that govern the interaction between participation and parthood. If objects _are_ events, as some perdurantists maintain, then participation just _is_ parthood. But what if objects and events form genuinely distinct categories? What, then, is the relationship between being part of something and taking part in something?

According to a well known, yet controversial metaphysical thesis, Composition is Identity. Recently, Kris McDaniel has articulated and defended a related—and arguably more controversial—thesis, one he calls Parthood is Identity (PI). Roughly the view has it that a whole is, strictly and literally, identical to each of its parts considered individually. At first sight, the view seems rather implausible. However, McDaniel’s formulation and defense are worthy of a serious discussion. In this paper I put forth such a discussion. The result is what we should have expected all along: PI is not only implausible, but arguably false.

According to High-Dimensional Wavefunction Fundamentalism (HDWF) the wavefunction field evolving in configuration space is all that exists fundamentally. The main argument in favor of HDWF is an argument from separability and locality: separability is a desirable feature of a fundamental metaphysics and HDWF is indeed such a separable metaphysics. Separability in turn is desirable because it is simple and intuitive. Tim Maudlin has recently argued that intuitiveness and simplicity cannot motivate separability. In particular, our intuitions stem from our interactions with the three-dimensional world which is non-separable. Therefore, he concludes, there is _nothing else_ HDWF theorists can appeal to motivate separability. I call this Maudlin’s challenge. The present paper addresses Maudlin’s challenge by showing how the facts that some plurality of entities are separable entail that its constituents are fundamental, for well-motivated notions of fundamentality.

The idea that qualities can be had partly or to an intermediate degree is controversial among contemporary metaphysicians, but also has a considerable pedigree among philosophers and scientists. In this paper, we first aim to show that metaphysical sense can be made of this idea by proposing a partial taxonomy of metaphysical accounts of graded qualities, focusing on three particular approaches: one which explicates having a quality to a degree in terms of having a property with an in-built degree, another based on the idea that instantiation admits of degrees, and a third which derives the degree to which a quality is had from the aspects of multi-dimensional properties. Our second aim is to demonstrate that the choice between these accounts can make a substantial metaphysical difference. To make this point, we rely on two case studies (involving quantum observables and values) in which we apply the accounts in order to model apparent cases of metaphysical gradedness.

According to perspectival realism, reality is (at least partially) constituted by “purely perspectival” facts, that is, facts that appear to describe reality only from a given “perspective”. Fragmentalism is a form of perspectival realism that maintains both that no perspective is privileged and that perspectival facts constitute reality absolutely. Assuming that reality is sufficiently variegated, fragmentalism entails that reality is absolutely constituted by incompatible facts. Given that incompatible facts can never obtain together, reality must be divided into a plurality of “fragments” that never compose a coherent, unitary whole. The main aim of this paper is to provide the first rigorous, detailed map of fragmentalism and its rivals. First, we will argue that fragmentalism is best construed as having two “unitist” (that is, non-fragmentalist) boundaries, which we will call ‘coherent’ and ‘incoherent unitism’. Second, we will present what we take to be the six main viable versions of fragmentalism and show how they can be categorized according to whether they take the logical operations of conjunction and negation to be either “local” or “global”.

Different realistic attitudes towards wavefunctions and quantum states are as old as quantum theory itself. Recently Pusey, Barret and Rudolph on the one hand, and Auletta and Tarozzi on the other, have proposed new interesting arguments in favor of a broad realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics that can be considered the modern heir to some views held by the fathers of quantum theory. In this paper we give a new and detailed presentation of such arguments, propose a new taxonomy of different realistic positions in the foundations of quantum mechanics and assess the scope, within this new taxonomy, of these realistic arguments.

Extended simple regions have been the focus of recent developments in philosophical logic, metaphysics, and philosophy of physics. However, only a handful of works provides a rigorous characterization of an extended simple region. In particular, a recent paper in this journal defends a definition based on an extrinsic notion of least distance. Call it the Least Distance proposal. This paper provides the first assessment of it. It argues that Least Distance faces difficulties and drawbacks. The paper then goes on to suggest a different proposal, the Diameter proposal that is able to handle such drawbacks and difficulties.

According to Relational Quantum Mechanics the wave function \ is considered neither a concrete physical item evolving in spacetime, nor an object representing the absolute state of a certain quantum system. In this interpretative framework, \ is defined as a computational device encoding observers’ information; hence, RQM offers a somewhat epistemic view of the wave function. This perspective seems to be at odds with the PBR theorem, a formal result excluding that wave functions represent knowledge of an underlying reality described by some ontic state. In this paper we argue that RQM is not affected by the conclusions of PBR’s argument; consequently, the alleged inconsistency can be dissolved. To do that, we will thoroughly discuss the very foundations of the PBR theorem, i.e. Harrigan and Spekkens’ categorization of ontological models, showing that their implicit assumptions about the nature of the ontic state are incompatible with the main tenets of RQM. Then, we will ask whether it is possible to derive a relational PBR-type result, answering in the negative. This conclusion shows some limitations of this theorem not yet discussed in the literature.

According to a recent argument due to Wasserman, endurantism does not qualify as an explanatory theory of persistence inasmuch as it either provides a circular account of persistence facts or merely rejects the perdurantist’s explanation of such facts. This paper challenges Wasserman’s conclusions by pointing out that an endurantist answer to his complaint is available thanks to the locational notions of persistence provided in the work of Gilmore, Parsons, Balashov among others. It then gives details as to how such notions can be used to answer Wasserman’s specific argument for the idea that endurantism is either unexplanatory or circular. After a brief introduction (Sect. 1 ) we provide the technical notions that we need to answer Wasserman’s complaint (Sect. 2 ) and offer a phrasing of endurantism which is immune to that complaint in terms of locative notions (Sect. 3 ). We then prove that two further conceptions of endurantism are entailed by that phrasing. Crucially, such conceptions are phrased in terms that Wasserman himself cannot, on pain of inconsistency, dismiss, as those are the very terms in which he conceives of endurantism in the first place—that is, whole presence and the rejection of temporal parts (Sect. 4 ).

One might suppose that Everettian quantum mechanics (EQM) is inhospitable to metaphysial indeterminacy (MI), given that, as A. Wilson (2020) puts it, "the central idea of EQM is to replace indeterminacy with multiplicity" (77). But as Wilson goes on to suggest, the popular decoherence-based understanding of EQM (henceforth: DEQM) appears to admit of indeterminacy in both world number and world nature, where the latter indeterminacy---our focus here---is plausibly metaphysical. After a brief presentation of DEQM (S1), we bolster the case for there being MI in world nature in DEQM (S2). The remainder of the paper is devoted to a comparative assessment of the two main approaches to MI for purposes of accommodating this MI---namely, a metaphysical supervaluationist approach (as per Barnes and Williams 2011) and a determinable-based approach (as per Wilson 2013 and Calosi and Wilson 2018 and 2021). We briefly describe each approach (S3), then offer arguments in favour of a determinable-based approach to world nature MI in DEQM (S4).

We put forward a new, ‘coherentist’ account of quantum entanglement, according to which entangled systems are characterized by symmetric relations of ontological dependence among the component particles. We compare this coherentist viewpoint with the two most popular alternatives currently on offer—structuralism and holism—and argue that it is essentially different from, and preferable to, both. In the course of this article, we point out how coherentism might be extended beyond the case of entanglement and further articulated.

The paper provides an overview of the main metaphysical theories of persistence -that is, of three and four-dimensionalism, as applied to a relativistic setting. It then addresses and undermines one of the most powerful objections against one of those views -i. e., four-dimensionalism. That objection is labeled the No-Change objection in the literature and has it that four-dimensionalism abolishes genuine change. Finally, building on the case against the No-Change objection, I contend there is some pressure to abandon the widespread assumption that change requires reference to distinct earlier and later times, let alone the passage of time. The aim of this paper is threefold. First, I provide an overview of theories of the metaphysics of persistence in a relativistic setting. Then, I offer a new discussion of the so-called “No-Change objection”, -which is considered one of the most powerful objections against a particular metaphysics of persistence, i. e., four-dimensionalism, and undermine it. Finally, building on my case against the No-Change objection, I contend there is some pressure to abandon a widespread intuition and widely held philosophical thesis according to which genuine change requires reference to two distinct times, if not its passage. It should already be clear from my plan that the discussion of the No-Change argument plays a twofold role. On the one hand, it is supposed to provide a way to resist one of the objections that has been considered, and still to this day is considered -for better or worse-one of the most significant objections against fourdimensionalism. On the other hand, it paves the way to address some crucial metaphysical questions about the relation between time and change.

I interpret the first part of Croce’s Estetica as an example of ageneral foundational argument about knowledge. I argue thatCroce uses correctly this very general argumentative structure.I argue that this foundational attempt could not be read neitheras a trascendental nor a reductionist attempt. I suggest that thevery best way to look at it is to be found in Croce’s later works.I then conclude with some problems that arises within the foundational context.Keywords: knowledge, foundationalism, intuition, concept.

The paper presents different arguments against the necessity of mereological universalism. First, it argues that they are examples of a much more general argumentative structure. It then contends that some of these arguments cannot be resisted by distinguishing different variants of universalism that have been recently proposed in the literature—in contrast with recent suggestions to the contrary. Finally, it provides different ways to resist such contingentist arguments on behalf of universalists.