Scholarlink

<p>Michael Esfeld’s minimalist ontology is committed to two axioms relating to (1) distance relations that identify simple objects (permanent matter points) while (2) the distances between them change. This article scrutinizes such a conceptual strategy to determine whether it can successfully be applied to all levels of physical reality, as Esfeld contends. To do so, it explores one of his paradigmatic sources, that is, Bohmian mechanics. Two arguments are proposed. First, while Bohm’s original formulation of Bohmian mechanics and the interpretation advocated by Dürr, Goldstein &amp; Zanghì are typically taken as mathematically equivalent, this article argues that Esfeld’s minimalist ontology does not cover the former’s ontological richness. To secure its achievement, the minimalist ontology framework needs to (i) break the equivalence between the two versions via a commitment to the nomological interpretation of the wavefunction (ii) yet attribute some kind of physical efficacy to the wavefunction as a guiding parameter for the evolution of particles living in three-dimensional space. Both requirements will be critically addressed. Second, the article shows that Esfeld’s metaphysical program is not only forced to rely on a theoretically suspicious formulation of quantum mechanics, but that more fundamental, under-development approaches in theoretical physics are way less reconcilable with its axioms, thus questioning its alleged universality.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Which quantum foundations for the minimalist ontology framework?

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月19日

查看全文
  • Emilia Margoni

摘要

Michael Esfeld’s minimalist ontology is committed to two axioms relating to (1) distance relations that identify simple objects (permanent matter points) while (2) the distances between them change. This article scrutinizes such a conceptual strategy to determine whether it can successfully be applied to all levels of physical reality, as Esfeld contends. To do so, it explores one of his paradigmatic sources, that is, Bohmian mechanics. Two arguments are proposed. First, while Bohm’s original formulation of Bohmian mechanics and the interpretation advocated by Dürr, Goldstein & Zanghì are typically taken as mathematically equivalent, this article argues that Esfeld’s minimalist ontology does not cover the former’s ontological richness. To secure its achievement, the minimalist ontology framework needs to (i) break the equivalence between the two versions via a commitment to the nomological interpretation of the wavefunction (ii) yet attribute some kind of physical efficacy to the wavefunction as a guiding parameter for the evolution of particles living in three-dimensional space. Both requirements will be critically addressed. Second, the article shows that Esfeld’s metaphysical program is not only forced to rely on a theoretically suspicious formulation of quantum mechanics, but that more fundamental, under-development approaches in theoretical physics are way less reconcilable with its axioms, thus questioning its alleged universality.