What the Humean Should Say About Entanglement

Abstract

Tim Maudlin has influentially argued that Humeanism about laws of nature stands in conflict with quantum mechanics. Specifically Humeanism implies the principle Separability: the complete physical state of a world is determined by the intrinsic physical state of each space‐time point. Maudlin argues Separability is violated by the entangled states posited by QM. We argue that Maudlin only establishes that a stronger principle, which we call Strong Separability, is in tension with QM. Separability is not in tension with QM. Moreover, while the Humean requires Separability to capture the core tenets of her view, there's no Humean‐specific motivation for accepting Strong Separability. We go on to give a Humean account of entangled states which satisfies Separability. The core idea is that certain quantum states depend upon the Humean mosaic in much the same way as the laws do. In fact, we offer a variant of the Best System account on which the systemization procedure that generates the laws also serves to ground these states. We show how this account works by applying it to the example of Bohmian Mechanics. The 3N‐dimensional configuration space, the world particle in it and the wave function on it are part of the best system of the Humean mosaic, which consists of N particles moving in 3‐dimensional space. We argue that this account is superior to the Humean account of Bohmian Mechanics defended by Loewer and Albert, which takes the 3N‐dimensional space, and its inhabitants, as fundamental.

Quantum Mechanics in a Time-Asymmetric Universe: On the Nature of the Initial Quantum State

“…We can perform similar "Humeanization" maneuvers on the density matrix in other quantum theories with local beables-W-GRWm, W-GRWf, and W-Sm (although such procedures might not be as compelling). This version of Quantum Humeanism based on W PH -theories is different from the other approaches in the literature: Albert (1996), Loewer (1996), Miller (2014, Esfeld (2014), Bhogal and Perry (2015), Callender (2015) and Esfeld and Deckert (2017). In contrast to the high-dimensional proposal of Albert (1996) and Loewer (1996), our version preserves the fundamentality of physical space.…”

“…SeeAlbert (1996),Loewer (1996),Wallace and Timpson (2010),Ney (2012),North (2013),Maudlin (2013),Goldstein and Zanghì (2013),Miller (2014),Esfeld (2014),Bhogal and Perry (2015),Callender (2015),Esfeld and Deckert (2017),Chen (2017aChen ( ,b, 2016,Hubert and Romano (2018). For a survey on…”

Individuality and the Account of Nonlocality: The Case for the Particle Ontology in Quantum Physics

“…Consequent upon its being nomological in that sense, all the stances in the metaphysics of laws of nature are applicable to the wave function. In particular, in recent years, a Bohmian Humeanism has been developed according to which the universal wave function is fixed by or supervenes on the history of the particle positions, being a variable that figures in the Humean best system (see Miller (2014), Esfeld (2014), Callender (2015) and Bhogal and Perry (2017)). This stance is applicable to all the theories that introduce the wave function through its dynamical role for the evolution of the configuration of matter in physical space, including GRWm and GRWf (see Dowker and Herbauts (2005) for a precise physical model based on GRWf).…”

The wave-function as a multi-field

“…Recent interpretations, like the nomological interpretation , the Humean interpretation (Bhogal and Perry, 2017;Callender, 2015;Esfeld et al, 2014;Miller, 2014), or the dispositional interpretation (Esfeld et al, 2014;Suárez, 2015) require a commitment to what laws of nature are. The multi-field interpretation, on the other hand, shows that one can have an ontological interpretation of the wave-function without a commitment to the status of laws of nature.…”