@unpublished{noauthor_can_2019,
	title = {Can quantum metaphysical indeterminacy be relational? {An} approach based on decoherence},
	copyright = {All rights reserved},
	abstract = {The topic of quantum metaphysical indeterminacy (QMI) is thriving in the philosophy of physics and in the metaphysics literature. (Skow 2010; Darby 2010; Wolff 2015; but see Glick 2017 for
the opposite view; Calosi and Wilson 2018) On some interpretations of quantum mechanics, a quantum
system Sq violates the supposition of ‘property value determinacy,’ according to which a property PD of
a physical system (which can be an observable) does not have precise values at all times, so it is
indeterminate. When SQ is in an eigenstate for some observable, it definitely has the value for that
observable; when SQ is not in an eigenstate of an observable, it is indeterminate for each property
whether it has the value of the observable. On some other interpretations (most notably, the Bohmian
interpretation) there is no quantum indeterminacy.
This paper explores an idea suggested in the literature, but not extensively: a relational concept of
indeterminacy. In this specific case, we reconstruct indeterminacy as a determinable/determinate
distinction of relational indeterminacy. As it is logically evident, such a distinction is available for
monadic properties and for relations. (Wolff 2015) Moving from monadic predicates to n-place
predicates can illuminate, as the arguments goes, interesting aspects of indeterminacy in which the
interactions of a quantum system Sq play a major role in its determinate/indeterminate nature. On a
strong reading of the present argument, relational indeterminacy can help reduce the intrinsic, monadic
type of QMI, as discussed by the mainstream approach to indeterminacy. A less ambitious task is to
accept two ways of talking about indeterminacy, and to suggest a research program in metaphysics on
both and on their interconnectedness.
One can open a conceptual space for relational quantum indeterminacy at least on these lines of thought:
I-01 ‘Spatiotemporal QMI’: The relation of a quantum system SQ with spacetime structures entails the
QMI of SQ: The quantum indeterminacy of SQ is conceptually dependent on the ‘indeterminacy’ of the
spacetime structures (SPT) in which SQ evolves.
I-02 ‘Relativistic QMI’: The quantum indeterminacy of SQ is not a property of SQ, but it is dependent
of the frame reference of the observers of SQ.
I-03 ‘Decoherent QMI’: The quantum indeterminacy of SQ is conceptually dependent on the
indeterminacy of the other system(s) with which SQ interacts (be them other quantum systems, or
classical systems).
I-04 ‘Intrinsic relational QMI’: The quantum indeterminacy of SQ is grounded in the interdependence
of quantum properties of SQ alone. (see for example Kochen-Specker theorem, (Skow 2010).
The I-03 is probably the strongest relational QMI stance and it is the only one we focus in this abstract.
Macroscopic systems (e.g. tables, trees, cats, people) usually have determinate properties and
determinables, although they are always composed of ensembles of quantum systems. But as
decoherentists argue, quantum systems should sometimes have determinates such they can combine in
macroscopic systems that have determinate properties. Decoherence is an interaction between a quantum
system and an environment; it singles out ‘preferred’ states called “pointer basis” and the observables to
receive definite values.(Fortin and Lombardi 2014) The literature on decoherence assumes the
pervasiveness of entanglement of two systems, for which the total wave function in very rare situations
is the sum of both systems being in definite states. For decoherentists, any sufficiently effective
interaction induces correlations. Non-quantum systems interact over large distances, so we do not have
effectively closed quantum systems, except the universe as a whole. (Zurek and Paz 1999; Crull 2014).

The paper argues that I-03 can explain some features of QMI, especially the idea of classicality of some quantum
indeterminate and their priority as an interaction with the environment.},
	language = {5. Philosophy of physics},
	month = apr,
	year = {2019},
}

{"_id":"EaLu896NLmMT9xaLX","bibbaseid":"anonymous-canquantummetaphysicalindeterminacyberelationalanapproachbasedondecoherence-2019","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2019-04-04T02:05:21.899Z","title":"Can quantum metaphysical indeterminacy be relational? An approach based on decoherence","author_short":null,"year":2019,"bibtype":"unpublished","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/zotero-mypublications/imuntean@gmail.com","bibdata":{"bibtype":"unpublished","type":"unpublished","title":"Can quantum metaphysical indeterminacy be relational? An approach based on decoherence","copyright":"All rights reserved","abstract":"The topic of quantum metaphysical indeterminacy (QMI) is thriving in the philosophy of physics and in the metaphysics literature. (Skow 2010; Darby 2010; Wolff 2015; but see Glick 2017 for the opposite view; Calosi and Wilson 2018) On some interpretations of quantum mechanics, a quantum system Sq violates the supposition of ‘property value determinacy,’ according to which a property PD of a physical system (which can be an observable) does not have precise values at all times, so it is indeterminate. When SQ is in an eigenstate for some observable, it definitely has the value for that observable; when SQ is not in an eigenstate of an observable, it is indeterminate for each property whether it has the value of the observable. On some other interpretations (most notably, the Bohmian interpretation) there is no quantum indeterminacy. This paper explores an idea suggested in the literature, but not extensively: a relational concept of indeterminacy. In this specific case, we reconstruct indeterminacy as a determinable/determinate distinction of relational indeterminacy. As it is logically evident, such a distinction is available for monadic properties and for relations. (Wolff 2015) Moving from monadic predicates to n-place predicates can illuminate, as the arguments goes, interesting aspects of indeterminacy in which the interactions of a quantum system Sq play a major role in its determinate/indeterminate nature. On a strong reading of the present argument, relational indeterminacy can help reduce the intrinsic, monadic type of QMI, as discussed by the mainstream approach to indeterminacy. A less ambitious task is to accept two ways of talking about indeterminacy, and to suggest a research program in metaphysics on both and on their interconnectedness. One can open a conceptual space for relational quantum indeterminacy at least on these lines of thought: I-01 ‘Spatiotemporal QMI’: The relation of a quantum system SQ with spacetime structures entails the QMI of SQ: The quantum indeterminacy of SQ is conceptually dependent on the ‘indeterminacy’ of the spacetime structures (SPT) in which SQ evolves. I-02 ‘Relativistic QMI’: The quantum indeterminacy of SQ is not a property of SQ, but it is dependent of the frame reference of the observers of SQ. I-03 ‘Decoherent QMI’: The quantum indeterminacy of SQ is conceptually dependent on the indeterminacy of the other system(s) with which SQ interacts (be them other quantum systems, or classical systems). I-04 ‘Intrinsic relational QMI’: The quantum indeterminacy of SQ is grounded in the interdependence of quantum properties of SQ alone. (see for example Kochen-Specker theorem, (Skow 2010). The I-03 is probably the strongest relational QMI stance and it is the only one we focus in this abstract. Macroscopic systems (e.g. tables, trees, cats, people) usually have determinate properties and determinables, although they are always composed of ensembles of quantum systems. But as decoherentists argue, quantum systems should sometimes have determinates such they can combine in macroscopic systems that have determinate properties. Decoherence is an interaction between a quantum system and an environment; it singles out ‘preferred’ states called “pointer basis” and the observables to receive definite values.(Fortin and Lombardi 2014) The literature on decoherence assumes the pervasiveness of entanglement of two systems, for which the total wave function in very rare situations is the sum of both systems being in definite states. For decoherentists, any sufficiently effective interaction induces correlations. Non-quantum systems interact over large distances, so we do not have effectively closed quantum systems, except the universe as a whole. (Zurek and Paz 1999; Crull 2014). The paper argues that I-03 can explain some features of QMI, especially the idea of classicality of some quantum indeterminate and their priority as an interaction with the environment.","language":"5. Philosophy of physics","month":"April","year":"2019","bibtex":"@unpublished{noauthor_can_2019,\n\ttitle = {Can quantum metaphysical indeterminacy be relational? {An} approach based on decoherence},\n\tcopyright = {All rights reserved},\n\tabstract = {The topic of quantum metaphysical indeterminacy (QMI) is thriving in the philosophy of physics and in the metaphysics literature. (Skow 2010; Darby 2010; Wolff 2015; but see Glick 2017 for\nthe opposite view; Calosi and Wilson 2018) On some interpretations of quantum mechanics, a quantum\nsystem Sq violates the supposition of ‘property value determinacy,’ according to which a property PD of\na physical system (which can be an observable) does not have precise values at all times, so it is\nindeterminate. When SQ is in an eigenstate for some observable, it definitely has the value for that\nobservable; when SQ is not in an eigenstate of an observable, it is indeterminate for each property\nwhether it has the value of the observable. On some other interpretations (most notably, the Bohmian\ninterpretation) there is no quantum indeterminacy.\nThis paper explores an idea suggested in the literature, but not extensively: a relational concept of\nindeterminacy. In this specific case, we reconstruct indeterminacy as a determinable/determinate\ndistinction of relational indeterminacy. As it is logically evident, such a distinction is available for\nmonadic properties and for relations. (Wolff 2015) Moving from monadic predicates to n-place\npredicates can illuminate, as the arguments goes, interesting aspects of indeterminacy in which the\ninteractions of a quantum system Sq play a major role in its determinate/indeterminate nature. On a\nstrong reading of the present argument, relational indeterminacy can help reduce the intrinsic, monadic\ntype of QMI, as discussed by the mainstream approach to indeterminacy. A less ambitious task is to\naccept two ways of talking about indeterminacy, and to suggest a research program in metaphysics on\nboth and on their interconnectedness.\nOne can open a conceptual space for relational quantum indeterminacy at least on these lines of thought:\nI-01 ‘Spatiotemporal QMI’: The relation of a quantum system SQ with spacetime structures entails the\nQMI of SQ: The quantum indeterminacy of SQ is conceptually dependent on the ‘indeterminacy’ of the\nspacetime structures (SPT) in which SQ evolves.\nI-02 ‘Relativistic QMI’: The quantum indeterminacy of SQ is not a property of SQ, but it is dependent\nof the frame reference of the observers of SQ.\nI-03 ‘Decoherent QMI’: The quantum indeterminacy of SQ is conceptually dependent on the\nindeterminacy of the other system(s) with which SQ interacts (be them other quantum systems, or\nclassical systems).\nI-04 ‘Intrinsic relational QMI’: The quantum indeterminacy of SQ is grounded in the interdependence\nof quantum properties of SQ alone. (see for example Kochen-Specker theorem, (Skow 2010).\nThe I-03 is probably the strongest relational QMI stance and it is the only one we focus in this abstract.\nMacroscopic systems (e.g. tables, trees, cats, people) usually have determinate properties and\ndeterminables, although they are always composed of ensembles of quantum systems. But as\ndecoherentists argue, quantum systems should sometimes have determinates such they can combine in\nmacroscopic systems that have determinate properties. Decoherence is an interaction between a quantum\nsystem and an environment; it singles out ‘preferred’ states called “pointer basis” and the observables to\nreceive definite values.(Fortin and Lombardi 2014) The literature on decoherence assumes the\npervasiveness of entanglement of two systems, for which the total wave function in very rare situations\nis the sum of both systems being in definite states. For decoherentists, any sufficiently effective\ninteraction induces correlations. Non-quantum systems interact over large distances, so we do not have\neffectively closed quantum systems, except the universe as a whole. (Zurek and Paz 1999; Crull 2014).\n\nThe paper argues that I-03 can explain some features of QMI, especially the idea of classicality of some quantum\nindeterminate and their priority as an interaction with the environment.},\n\tlanguage = {5. Philosophy of physics},\n\tmonth = apr,\n\tyear = {2019},\n}\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n","key":"noauthor_can_2019","id":"noauthor_can_2019","bibbaseid":"anonymous-canquantummetaphysicalindeterminacyberelationalanapproachbasedondecoherence-2019","role":"","urls":{},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"downloads":0},"search_terms":["quantum","metaphysical","indeterminacy","relational","approach","based","decoherence"],"keywords":[],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["4K2MoJSeWKBxPigwg","wjn8cK5LeFh95gDh5","GPpRKkvJnTEshZncz","3DoWMBkcaKTznZMsx","m6XEq4NgafoWkPhJH"]}