In this paper, we evaluate the project of resurgence of metaphysics based on the pecularity of the quantum domain, a project that is supported by some contemporary philosophers. Beyond the general arguments against scientific realism that are still applicable here, we show that this project is faced with the three following issues that, we believe, make it unrealizable: (a) the problem raised by the realistic interpretation of the wave function, as a description of a ‘concrete physical fact’ of the independent (...) reality; (b) the lack of any experimental counterpart of the (non-local) hidden variables quantum theories, and, in some cases, their incompatibility with the quantum predictions; and (c) the fact that the key-properties of quantum phenomena, like their non-locality, essentially depend on the observables that are used for their description and cannot then be assigned to any ‘independent’ reality. (shrink)

It is common ground among proponents and detractors of wavefunction realism that the view ‘privileges position’, in the sense that it arbitrarily singles out one among a continuum infinity of wavefunction representations as characterizing the fundamental field: the position representation. This paper shows that, properly understood, wavefunction realism does not involve such an arbitrary choice. First, I argue that, though each wavefunction representation gives rise to a different version of wavefunction realism, the difference between these theories amounts to a mere (...) haecceitistic difference. Second, I argue that wavefunction realists should reconceive of their view as a role-based thesis that is silent about the relevant haecceitistic differences. (shrink)

The purpose of this contribution is to examine the current state of the de Broglie-Bohm theory (dBB) in light of Bohm’s vision as he explicitly set it out in his book Quantum theory [In Bohm, D., Quantum theory, Courier corporation, (1961b)]. In particular, two programmes that differ in many crucial respects are currently being pursued. On the one hand, the Bohmian mechanics school, founded by Dürr Goldstein and Zanghì, considers the theory to be Galilean invariant, regards particles’ motion as determined (...) by a nomological entity, the universal wave function, upholds the quantum equilibrium hypothesis and explains probabilities in terms of typicality. On the other hand, the Pilot-wave school advocated by Valentini considers the theory to be based on Aristotelian dynamics, regards the wave function as a physical field displaying a contingent nature, and explains quantum equilibrium as the result of a process of relaxation from quantum non-equilibrium. Looking at Bohm’s work [In Bohm, D., Quantum theory, Courier corporation, (1961b)], it is clear that his intention was to construct a theory that was empirically different from standard quantum mechanics, so that it would be testable and falsifiable. Only this way could he defend dBB from the criticism that accused the theory of being 'metaphysical'. These methodological concerns about the falsifiability of the theory constitute, in my opinion, a strong reason for regarding Valentini's programme as methodologically valuable, even if it might turn out to be wrong. Indeed, the programme of the Pilot-wave school aims to be falsifiable with respect to standard quantum mechanics and can in principle defend the empirical status of particle trajectories. (shrink)

The meaning of the wave function is an important unresolved issue in Bohmian mechanics. On the one hand, according to the nomological view, the wave function of the universe or the universal wave function is nomological, like a law of nature. On the other hand, the PBR theorem proves that the wave function in quantum mechanics or the effective wave function in Bohmian mechanics is ontic, representing the ontic state of a physical system in the universe. It is usually thought (...) that the nomological view of the universal wave function is compatible with the ontic view of the effective wave function, and thus the PBR theorem has no implications for the nomological view. In this paper, I argue that this is not the case, and these two views are in fact incompatible. This means that if the effective wave function is ontic as the PBR theorem proves, then the universal wave function cannot be nomological, and the ontology of Bohmian mechanics cannot consist only in particles. This incompatibility result holds true not only for Humeanism and dispositionalism but also for primitivism about laws of nature, which attributes a fundamental ontic role to the universal wave function. Moreover, I argue that although the nomological view can be held by rejecting one key assumption of the PBR theorem, the rejection will lead to serious problems, such as that the results of measurements and their probabilities cannot be explained in ontology in Bohmian mechanics. Finally, I briefly discuss three $$\psi$$ -ontologies, namely a physical field in a fundamental high-dimensional space, a multi-field in three-dimensional space, and RDMP (Random Discontinuous Motion of Particles) in three-dimensional space, and argue that the RDMP ontology can answer the objections to the $$\psi$$ -ontology raised by the proponents of the nomological view. (shrink)