Cristian Mariani

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.

Spontaneous collapse models (SCM) employ an imaginary noise term in the modification of Schrödinger’s equation in order to achieve a stochastic collapse process. Such noise term is typically assumed to be white, and therefore uncorrelated in time, which results in the dynamics being Markovian. In the first part of this paper I discuss the reasons why physicists are exploring the possibility to instead employ non-white stochastic noise terms in the dynamics of SCM, and I then briefly introduce these models. In the second part, my aim is to provide an evaluation of the major conceptual and philosophical consequences of the generalised collapse models with colored noise. In particular, I will focus on the broad class of implications having to do with the non-Markovian nature of the dynamics, with its resulting temporal non-locality, and on the possibility to consider the noise field as a real physical entity.

We consider the observables describing spatiotemporal properties in the context of two of the most popular approaches to quantum gravity (QG), namely String Theory and Loop QG. In both approaches these observables are described by non-commuting operators. In analogy with recent arguments put forward in the context of non-relativistic quantum mechanics [see Calosi and Mariani (Philos. Compass 16(4):e12731, 2021) for a review], we suggest that the physical quantities corresponding to those observables may be interpreted as ontologically indeterminate—i.e., indeterminate in a way that is non-epistemic and semantic-independent. This working hypothesis has not received enough attention in the current debate on QG, and yet it may prove explanatory useful in several respects. First, it provides a clear background for understanding how some features of QG are ontologically continuous to features of quantum mechanics. Second, it sets the stage for asking new interesting questions about QG, for instance concerning the status of the so-called Eigenstate-Eigenvalue link. Third, it indirectly shows how the debate on ontological indeterminacy may extend well beyond the non-relativistic case, contrary to what seems to be assumed. Fourth, and perhaps more importantly, it provides a promising alternative to the received view on QG [Wüthrich et al. (Philosophy Beyond Spacetime: Implications from Quantum Gravity, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021)] according to which spacetime is not fundamental. On the view we shall suggest, spacetime may be indeterminate and yet fundamental.

Of the many ways of getting at the core of the weirdnesses in quantum mechanics, there’s one which traces back to Schrödinger’s seminal 1935 paper, and has to do with the apparent fuzzy nature of the reality described by the formalism through the wavefunction $$\psi$$ ψ. This issue, which I will be calling the Determinacy Problem, is distinct from the standard measurement problem of quantum mechanics, despite Schrödinger himself ends up conflating the two. I will argue that the Determinacy Problem is an exquisitely philosophical problem, for as it is standard when facing any phenomenon which appears to have indeterminate or fuzzy characteristics, the solutions available are to either blame the deficiencies of our language, or our lack of knowledge, or to blame the world itself. These three attitudes can already be found in the literature on quantum mechanics, either explicitly or implicitly, and they appear to motivate three very distinct research programs: high-dimensional realism, primitive ontology, and quantum indeterminacy.

The Mass Density approach to GRW (GRWm for short) has been widely discussed in the quantum foundations literature. A crucial feature of GRWm is the introduction of a Criterion of Accessibility for mass, which allows to explain the determinacy of experimental outcomes thus also addressing the tails problem of GRW. However, the Criterion of Accessibility leaves the ontological meaning of the non-accessible portion of mass utterly unexplained. In this paper I discuss two viable approaches to non-accessible mass, which I call anti-realist and realist, and will defend the latter. First, I show that the anti-realist approach suffers from various objections. Second, I develop an account of non-accessible mass density states as objectively indeterminate states of affairs.

Barnes (2014) has argued in this journal for the following conditional: If there is any metaphysical indeterminacy, this must be at the most fundamental level of reality. To argue for this claim, Barnes relies on two principles that I shall call bivalent completeness and determinate link. According to the former, a complete description is a bivalent assignment of truth values to every sentence. The determinate link, instead, establishes that the determination relation between levels of reality preserves determinacy from one level to another. In response to Barnes’ conclusion, Eva (2018) has recently pointed out that bivalent completeness is question begging. In this paper, I will first show why Eva's line of reasoning can be resisted. My aim will then be to present a stronger case against Barnes’ argument by challenging the determinate link. In the presence of metaphysical indeterminacy, the link between fundamental and derivative facts might itself be the locus of indeterminacy. I will conclude by showing that Barnes and Eva make many unwarranted assumptions regarding both indeterminacy and fundamentality. The logical space around the connection between these two notions appears to be much wider than what they seem to be aware of, or so I will argue.

Many features of quantum mechanics (QM) suggest that, at the microscopic level, objects sometimes fail to determinately instantiate their properties. In recent years, many have argued that this phenomenon indicates the existence of an ontological kind of indeterminacy, often called metaphysical indeterminacy, which is supposed to affect the ontology of QM. As insisted by Glick ('Against Quantum Indeterminacy), however, once we look at the major realist approaches to QM we learn that the indeterminacy disappears from the description of the world at its most fundamental level. This absence might be taken as a good reason for adopting some form of eliminativism towards quantum mechanical indeterminacy. The aim of this paper is to distinguish three ways of defending eliminativism, and to argue that none of them eventually succeeds. The upshot is that QM does in fact suggest the existence of metaphysical indeterminacy, although only as an emergent phenomenon.

Explanations of the genuine openness of the future often appeal to objective indeterminacy. According to the received view, such indeterminacy is indeterminacy of certain future-tensed state of affairs that presently obtain. We shall call this view the weak indeterminate present, to distinguish it from the view we will defend in this paper, which we dub the strong indeterminate present. According to our view, unsettledness of the future is grounded on the present indeterminacy of some present-tensed state of affairs. In order for an indeterminate present-tensed state of affairs to explain the unsettledness of a future-tensed state of affairs, there has to be a connection between the two. We argue that this connection can only be provided if we look at the internal structure of the relevant state of affairs. Finally, we will suggest that the best background theory to explain the connection are the so-called spontaneous collapse models of quantum mechanics.