REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 69 references
Antirealism in sheep's clothing: Wave function realism and scientific realism
T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The most detailed wave function realism is not actually a realist view.
desk verdict A clear, well-sourced critique of Ney's WFR_HD that overstates its conclusion: it shows her defense is pragmatic, not that the view lacks realist commitments. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing device is the ontology/metaontology distinction. Ontology asks what exists within a given linguistic or theoretical framework; metaontology asks whether there is an objective fact of the matter about which framework truly corresponds to the world. The paper uses this distinction as the test that separates realism from antirealism. It also isolates the actual justifications offered for WFR_HD—the argument from entanglement and the argument from locality and separability—and shows that both appeal to pragmatic virtues rather than truth-conducive evidence.
What would settle it
The classification would be falsified if defenders of the view produced a truth-conducive argument for the high-dimensional wave function framework—for example, a confirmed empirical prediction unique to that ontology that no rival can reproduce—or if they explicitly asserted that the framework is true rather than merely useful. It would also be undercut by a demonstration that pragmatic virtues such as simplicity reliably track truth in theory choice.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central claim is that high-dimensional wave function realism, abbreviated WFR_HD, is antirealism in realist clothing: it commits to the existence of wave functions inside a framework but refuses to assert that the framework is true. Scientific realism, as the paper characterizes it, has two components: an ontological commitment to the entities posited by our best theories, and a metaontological commitment to the truth of the theoretical framework itself. WFR_HD delivers the first but not the second; its supporting arguments, especially the argument from entanglement and the argument from locality and separability, are offered as reasons to prefer the framework, not as evidence that it corresponds to the world. The paper concludes that WFR_HD 'is a way the world could be, not how the world is,' and that the position should be reclassified as wave function pragmatism or wave function empiricism, a stance closer to constructive empiricism than to realism.
Load-bearing premise
The argument rests on the premise that scientific realism requires a metaontological commitment—that a realist must assert the truth of the theoretical framework itself, not merely the existence of its posits or its usefulness; if that requirement is rejected, the classification of the view as antirealist does not follow.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- If the argument is right, WFR_HD belongs in the antirealist camp, and its claim that wave functions are 'real, objective, physical fields' must be scaled back.
- The ontology/metaontology test applies to other quantum ontologies: offering only pragmatic reasons for preferring a framework, without asserting its truth, is not realism.
- Genuinely realist wave function views remain possible; the paper points to accounts that infer ontology from dynamical laws and assert that the world really has that structure.
- More generally, scientific realism requires a metaontological commitment, and pragmatic virtues such as simplicity and intuitiveness cannot by themselves ground belief.
Reading between the lines
- If the metaontological test is accepted, it would reclassify any quantum interpretation defended only by theoretical virtues as antirealist, not just this one.
- A natural extension is to ask which rival many-worlds, hidden-variable, and collapse approaches make explicit truth claims about their frameworks; those that do not would fall on the same side of the line.
- An implicit consequence is that the dispute is about epistemic attitude, not empirical content: both realism and antirealism, on this picture, can accept exactly the same physics.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper argues that Alyssa Ney's high-dimensional wave function realism (WFR_HD) is not a genuinely realist position but a form of antirealism. The authors define scientific realism as involving both an ontological commitment (belief in the entities posited by the theory) and a metaontological commitment (belief that the theoretical framework itself is true). They contend that while WFR_HD makes an internal ontological commitment to wave functions, it deliberately avoids the metaontological question and is instead defended on pragmatic, non-truth-conducive grounds (such as entanglement, locality, separability, and simplicity). Because WFR_HD offers only pragmatic reasons for preferring its framework and does not assert the framework's truth, the paper concludes that it is 'antirealism in sheep's clothing'—closer to constructive empiricism or wave function pragmatism than to realism. The paper contrasts WFR_HD with other realist wave function views (e.g., those of North and Albert) and draws implications for scientific realism more broadly.
Significance. If the argument were sound, the paper would make a significant contribution to the scientific realism debate and the interpretation of quantum mechanics, challenging the common classification of Ney's view as realist and giving a careful analysis of the ontology/metaontology distinction. The paper is clearly written, well-organized, and supported by extensive quotations from Ney and other philosophers, which is a strength. It also offers a useful comparison with alternative realist positions. However, the central inference—from pragmatic justification to lack of metaontological commitment—is contentious and may conflate the justification of a view with its content. The paper's own quoted evidence suggests that Ney does assert the objective existence of wave functions, which would constitute a metaontological commitment even if her arguments are not truth-conducive. Thus, while the paper is valuable as a critique of Ney's argumentative strategy, its main conclusion that WFR_HD is antirealism requires additional defense.
major comments (5)
- [§4] The central inference—from 'WFR_HD is defended on pragmatic, non-truth-conducive grounds' to 'WFR_HD evades the metaontological commitment to the framework's truth'—conflates the justification of a view with its content. The paper itself quotes Ney asserting that 'wave functions are not just real, but are real, objective, physical fields' [29, 69] and that 'we should be realists about quantum theories' [34, 15]. These are content-level metaontological commitments (they assert that the framework's posits exist objectively). If Ney sincerely holds these assertions, then WFR_HD satisfies the paper's own definition of realism, albeit with weak justification. To reach the conclusion that WFR_HD is antirealism, the paper needs an additional, undefended premise: that a view's realism is determined by the type of evidence offered rather than by the content of its commitment. Without this premise, the conclusion does not follow from the evidence presented.
- [§6] The 2023 quote from Ney—'But is my position a realism about the wave function? Well, no' [34, 14–15]—is ambiguous and the paper does not disambiguate it. It may deny only the specific high-dimensional-field ontology (i.e., that wave functions exist as fields in a high-dimensional space) while still maintaining a metaontological commitment to the objective existence of something (e.g., the wave function as a real physical field in some other sense). The paper treats this quote as a concession that WFR_HD is not realist, but the quote could be read as a retreat from the detailed ontology rather than from realism per se. This ambiguity is load-bearing for the paper's central claim and must be addressed.
- [§2] The definition of scientific realism is stipulated to include a 'metaontological' commitment to the truth of the theoretical framework itself. This is a contested characterization. Many scientific realists define realism in terms of belief in the truth of theories or in the existence of their posits, without a separate metaontological layer. The paper acknowledges that realism is characterized differently by every author, but then asserts a 'common denominator' that includes the metaontological claim. This is stronger than the widely shared 'general recipe' quoted from Chakravartty (true or approximately true descriptions of a mind-independent world). The paper should engage with alternative definitions or argue explicitly why the metaontological requirement is essential; otherwise, the conclusion that WFR_HD is antirealism rests on a stipulated premise that many realists would reject.
- [§4] The paper asserts that 'Pragmatic and intuitive considerations are not truth-conducive' and treats this as a premise. This is a substantive philosophical claim that is not universally accepted. Some authors argue that simplicity, explanatory power, or other theoretical virtues can be evidence of truth (e.g., see the literature cited in [53–55]). The paper's argument depends on this premise; if pragmatic virtues can be truth-conducive, then defending WFR_HD on pragmatic grounds does not show that it lacks a metaontological commitment. The paper should either defend this premise with argument or soften the conclusion to something like 'WFR_HD's pragmatic defense is in tension with the realist's alethic commitments' rather than 'WFR_HD is antirealism.'
- [§7] The concluding claim that 'WFR_HD is antirealism in sheep's clothing' is too strong given the paper's own acknowledgment that WFR_HD 'is not instrumentalist all the way' and that it has a monist foundation (§6). Even if Ney's arguments are pragmatic, a philosopher can hold a realist belief without providing fully truth-conducive arguments for it. The paper's conclusion would be more defensible as: 'WFR_HD, as defended by Ney, fails to provide adequate metaontological justification and thus does not meet the full requirements of scientific realism as the authors define it.' The current phrasing overstates the case and invites the objection that the paper is attacking a straw man built from a stipulated definition.
minor comments (5)
- [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: 'oponents' should be 'opponents' (p. 2), 'correspontential' should be 'correspondential' (p. 2), 'Unviersity' should be 'University' (p. 10), and 'Noˆ us' should be 'Noûs' (reference [35]).
- [§4] The phrase 'out of hand' on p. 6 appears to be used incorrectly; the intended meaning seems to be 'at hand' or 'out of reach' rather than 'out of control.' Please rephrase.
- [References] Some references are incomplete or inconsistent: reference [32] lacks the journal name, and reference [35] (Noûs) is missing the volume and page range. Please check all references for completeness.
- [§5] The discussion of Putnam's internal realism is brief and would benefit from a citation to Putnam's original work (e.g., Reason, Truth and History) rather than only to a secondary source [63], to help readers see the connection.
- [§6] The term 'wave function pragmatism' is introduced with a footnote distinguishing it from Healey's pragmatist approach [65]. The distinction is helpful, but the paper could briefly explain why the term is apt for WFR_HD rather than just what it is not.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the antirealism conclusion applies a stipulated definition of realism to Ney's defensive strategy; the only self-citation is terminological and not load-bearing.
full rationale
The paper's derivation is not circular. Its key inference is: scientific realism requires a metaontological commitment to the truth of the theoretical framework (Section 2, citing Fine, Chalmers, and Chakravartty); WFR_HD is defended by Ney on pragmatic, non-truth-conducive grounds (Section 4, quoting Ney 2021 and 2023); therefore WFR_HD as defended does not meet the realist standard and is closer to antirealism (Sections 6-7). This is a valid application of the paper's stipulated definition plus textual evidence, not a reduction of the conclusion to the premise by construction. The potential objection that Ney's own assertions that wave functions are 'real, objective, physical fields' already express a metaontological commitment targets the soundness of the inference (a justification/content conflation), not its circularity. The only self-citation is [46], Arroyo and da Silva, used in footnote 4 to defend the terminological label 'frameworkism' for Carnap's stance; this is not load-bearing for the central argument, which rests on Carnap's own internal/external distinction and on Ney's texts. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. Hence no circular step can be exhibited; the score of 2 reflects only the minor non-load-bearing self-citation.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption Scientific realism requires a metaontological commitment to the truth of the theoretical framework.
- domain assumption Pragmatic virtues (simplicity, intuitiveness) are not truth-conducive.
- domain assumption Ontological underdetermination of quantum mechanics prevents an objective answer to the metaontological question.
- domain assumption Ney's defense of WFR_HD is accurately characterized as pragmatic and not truth-based.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Antirealism in sheep's clothing: Wave function realism and scientific realism." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5WB52HWJ
@misc{pith2026250721615,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Antirealism in sheep's clothing: Wave function realism and scientific realism},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5WB52HWJ}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21615}
}
read the original abstract
Scientific realism is the philosophical stance that science tracks truth, in particular in its depiction of the world's ontology. Ontologically, this involves a commitment to the existence of entities posited by our best scientific theories; metaontologically, it includes the claim that the theoretical framework itself is true. In this article, we examine wave function realism as a case study within this broader methodological debate. Wave function realism holds that the wave function, as described by quantum mechanics, corresponds to a real physical entity. We focus on a recent formulation of this view that commits to the ontology of the wave function while deliberately avoiding the metaontological question of the framework's truth. Instead, the view is defended on pragmatic, non-truth-conductive grounds. This, we argue, raises tensions for the purported realism of wave function realism and its compatibility with scientific realism more broadly.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Maxwell, Theories, Frameworks, and Ontology, Philosophy of Science 69, 132 (1962)
G. Maxwell, Theories, Frameworks, and Ontology, Philosophy of Science 69, 132 (1962)
work page 1962
-
[2]
Chen, Realism about the wave function, Philosophy Compass 14, e12611 (2019)
E.K. Chen, Realism about the wave function, Philosophy Compass 14, e12611 (2019)
work page 2019
-
[3]
Albert, in The wave function: Essays on the metaphysics of quantum mechanics, ed
D.Z. Albert, in The wave function: Essays on the metaphysics of quantum mechanics, ed. by A. Ney, D.Z. Albert (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013), pp. 52–57
work page 2013
-
[4]
Wallace, in Current Controversies in Philosophy of Science, ed
D. Wallace, in Current Controversies in Philosophy of Science, ed. by S. Dasgupta, R. Dotan, B. Weslake (Routledge, New York, 2021), pp. 63–74
work page 2021
-
[5]
Hubert, Review of Alyssa Ney’s The World in the Wave Function, Philosophy of Science 89, 864 (2022)
M. Hubert, Review of Alyssa Ney’s The World in the Wave Function, Philosophy of Science 89, 864 (2022)
work page 2022
-
[6]
Maudlin, Speculations in High Dimensions, Analysis 82, 787 (2022)
T. Maudlin, Speculations in High Dimensions, Analysis 82, 787 (2022)
work page 2022
-
[7]
Chakravartty, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed
A. Chakravartty, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. by E.N. Zalta, Summer 2017 edn. (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2017)
work page 2017
-
[8]
Fine, Unnatural Attitudes: Realist and Instrumentalist Attachments to Science, Mind 95, 149 (1986)
A. Fine, Unnatural Attitudes: Realist and Instrumentalist Attachments to Science, Mind 95, 149 (1986)
work page 1986
Show all 69 references
-
[9]
French, in The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism, ed
S. French, in The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism, ed. by J. Saatsi (Routledge, New York, 2018), pp. 394–406
2018
-
[10]
Kincaid, in The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism, ed
H. Kincaid, in The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism, ed. by J. Saatsi (Routledge, New York, 2018), pp. 369–379
2018
-
[11]
Maudlin, The metaphysics within physics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007)
T. Maudlin, The metaphysics within physics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007)
2007
-
[12]
Bird, in The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism, ed
A. Bird, in The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism, ed. by J. Saatsi (Routledge, New York, 2018), pp. 419–433
2018
-
[13]
Hoefer, in Scientific Realism and the Quantum , ed
C. Hoefer, in Scientific Realism and the Quantum , ed. by S. French, J. Saatsi (Oxford University Press, New York, 2020), pp. 19–34
2020
-
[14]
Callender, in Scientific Realism and the Quantum, ed
C. Callender, in Scientific Realism and the Quantum, ed. by S. French, J. Saatsi (Oxford University Press, New York, 2020), pp. 55–77
2020
-
[15]
Mizrahi, The Relativity of Theory: Key Positions and Arguments in the Contemporary Scientific Realism/Antirealism Debate, Synthese Library, vol
M. Mizrahi, The Relativity of Theory: Key Positions and Arguments in the Contemporary Scientific Realism/Antirealism Debate, Synthese Library, vol. 431 (Springer, Cham, 2020)
2020
-
[16]
Ladyman, D
J. Ladyman, D. Ross, Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007)
2007
-
[17]
Ruetsche, in Scientific Realism and the Quantum , ed
L. Ruetsche, in Scientific Realism and the Quantum , ed. by S. French, J. Saatsi (Oxford University Press, New York, 2020), pp. 293–314
2020
-
[18]
Smart, Philosophy and Scientific Realism (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1963)
J.J.C. Smart, Philosophy and Scientific Realism (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1963)
1963
-
[19]
Boyd, On the current status of the issue of scientific realism, Erkenntnis 19, 45 (1983)
R.N. Boyd, On the current status of the issue of scientific realism, Erkenntnis 19, 45 (1983)
1983
-
[20]
Devitt, Realism and Truth (Blackwell, Oxford, 1991)
M. Devitt, Realism and Truth (Blackwell, Oxford, 1991)
1991
-
[21]
Kukla, Studies in Scientific Realism (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998)
A. Kukla, Studies in Scientific Realism (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998)
1998
-
[22]
Niiniluoto, Critical Scientific Realism (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999)
I. Niiniluoto, Critical Scientific Realism (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999)
1999
-
[23]
Psillos, Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth(Routledge, London, 1999)
S. Psillos, Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth(Routledge, London, 1999)
1999
-
[24]
Chakravartty, A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservable (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007)
A. Chakravartty, A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservable (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007)
2007
-
[25]
Carnap, Empiricism, semantics and ontology, Revue International de Philosophie 4 (1950)
R. Carnap, Empiricism, semantics and ontology, Revue International de Philosophie 4 (1950)
1950
-
[26]
Chalmers, in In Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology, ed
D. Chalmers, in In Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology, ed. by D. Chalmers, D. Manley, R. Wasserman (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009), pp. 77–129
2009
-
[27]
Ladyman, in Many worlds? Everett, quantum theory, and reality, ed
J. Ladyman, in Many worlds? Everett, quantum theory, and reality, ed. by S. Saunders, J. Barrett, A. Kent, D. Wallace (Oxford University Press, New York, 2010), pp. 154–160
2010
-
[28]
Ney, D.Z
A. Ney, D.Z. Albert (eds.), The wave function: Essays on the metaphysics of quantum mechanics(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013)
2013
-
[29]
Ney, The World in the Wave Function(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021)
A. Ney, The World in the Wave Function(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021)
2021
-
[30]
Ney, Neo-positivist metaphysics, Philosophical studies 160, 53 (2012)
A. Ney, Neo-positivist metaphysics, Philosophical studies 160, 53 (2012)
2012
-
[31]
Maudlin, in The Wave Function: Essays on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics , ed
T. Maudlin, in The Wave Function: Essays on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics , ed. by A. Ney, D.Z. Albert (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013), pp. 126–153
2013
-
[32]
Bueno, Dirac and the dispensability of mathematics, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 36, 465 (2005)
O. Bueno, Dirac and the dispensability of mathematics, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 36, 465 (2005). DOI 10.1016/j.shpsb.2005.03.002 Antirealism in sheep’s clothing 11
2005 doi
-
[33]
Bokulich, in Scientific Realism and the Quantum , ed
A. Bokulich, in Scientific Realism and the Quantum , ed. by S. French, J. Saatsi (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2020), pp. 185–211
2020
-
[34]
Ney, Three Arguments for Wave Function Realism, European Journal for Philosophy of Science 13(50) (2023)
A. Ney, Three Arguments for Wave Function Realism, European Journal for Philosophy of Science 13(50) (2023). DOI 10.1007/s13194-023-00554-5
2023 doi
-
[35]
Ney, The Status of Our Ordinary Three Dimensions in a Quantum Universe, Noˆ us46, 525 (2012)
A. Ney, The Status of Our Ordinary Three Dimensions in a Quantum Universe, Noˆ us46, 525 (2012)
2012
-
[36]
Howard, in Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell’s Theorem, ed
D. Howard, in Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell’s Theorem, ed. by J.T. Cushing, E. McMullin (University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 1989), pp. 224–253
1989
-
[37]
Teller, Relational Holism and Quantum Mechanics, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37, 71 (1986)
P. Teller, Relational Holism and Quantum Mechanics, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37, 71 (1986)
1986
-
[38]
Hubert, D
M. Hubert, D. Romano, The Wave-Function Is a Multi-Field, European Journal for the Philosophy of Science 8, 521 (2018)
2018
-
[39]
French, The structure of the world: Metaphysics and representation(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014)
S. French, The structure of the world: Metaphysics and representation(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014)
2014
-
[40]
French, J
S. French, J. Ladyman, Remodelling Structural Realism: Quantum Physics and the Metaphysics of Structure, Synthese 136, 31 (2003)
2003
-
[41]
Allori, in The wave function: Essays on the metaphysics of quantum mechanics, ed
V. Allori, in The wave function: Essays on the metaphysics of quantum mechanics, ed. by A. Ney, D.Z. Albert (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013), pp. 58–75
2013
-
[42]
Wallace, C
D. Wallace, C. Timpson, Quantum Mechanics on Spacetime I: Spacetime State Realism, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61, 697 (2010)
2010
-
[43]
Monton, in The wave function: Essays on the metaphysics of quantum mechanics, ed
B. Monton, in The wave function: Essays on the metaphysics of quantum mechanics, ed. by A. Ney, D.Z. Albert (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013), pp. 154–167
2013
-
[44]
Mizrahi, Your Appeals to Intuition Have No Power Here!, Axiomathes 32, 969 (2022)
M. Mizrahi, Your Appeals to Intuition Have No Power Here!, Axiomathes 32, 969 (2022)
2022
-
[45]
Carnap, The Logical Structure of the World [and] Pseudoproblems in Philosophy, 2nd edn
R. Carnap, The Logical Structure of the World [and] Pseudoproblems in Philosophy, 2nd edn. (Open Court, 2003)
2003
-
[46]
Arroyo, G.O
R. Arroyo, G.O. da Silva, Taking models seriously and being a linguistic realist, Principia 26, 73 (2022). DOI 10.5007/1808- 1711.2022.e84309
2022
-
[47]
Ladyman, in Many worlds? Everett, quantum theory, and reality, ed
J. Ladyman, in Many worlds? Everett, quantum theory, and reality, ed. by S. Saunders, J. Barrett, A. Kent, D. Wallace (Oxford University Press, New York, 2010), pp. 597–607
2010
-
[48]
van Fraassen, The Scientific Image (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980)
B.C. van Fraassen, The Scientific Image (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980)
1980
-
[49]
van Fraassen, Laws And Symmetry
B.C. van Fraassen, Laws And Symmetry. Clarendon paperbacks (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989)
1989
-
[50]
Ney, in Current Controversies in Philosophy of Science , ed
A. Ney, in Current Controversies in Philosophy of Science , ed. by S. Dasgupta, R. Dotan, B. Weslake (Routledge, New York, 2021), pp. 75–89
2021
-
[51]
Bueno, in The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism, ed
O. Bueno, in The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism, ed. by J. Saatsi (Routledge, New York, 2018), pp. 96–108
2018
-
[52]
Emery, Naturalism Beyond the Limits of Science: How Scientific Methodology Can and Should Shape Philosophical Theorizing (Oxford University Press, New York, 2023)
N. Emery, Naturalism Beyond the Limits of Science: How Scientific Methodology Can and Should Shape Philosophical Theorizing (Oxford University Press, New York, 2023). DOI 10.1093/oso/9780197654101.001.0001
2023
-
[53]
Dawid, String Theory and the Scientific Method (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013)
R. Dawid, String Theory and the Scientific Method (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013). DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139342513
2013 doi
-
[54]
Keas, Systematizing theoretical virtues, Synthese 195, 2761 (2018)
M.N. Keas, Systematizing theoretical virtues, Synthese 195, 2761 (2018). DOI 10.1007/s11229-017-1355-6
2018 doi
-
[55]
Schindler, Theoretical Virtues in Science: Uncovering Reality through Theory(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018)
S. Schindler, Theoretical Virtues in Science: Uncovering Reality through Theory(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018). DOI 10.1017/9781108381352
2018 doi
-
[56]
Ruetsche, The miracles argument meets quantum mechanics: Toward a locavore philosophy of physics, THEORIA
L. Ruetsche, The miracles argument meets quantum mechanics: Toward a locavore philosophy of physics, THEORIA. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science 39(2), 245 (2024). DOI 10.1387/theoria.24976
2024 doi
-
[57]
Fraser, P
J.D. Fraser, P. Vickers, Knowledge of the Quantum Domain: An Overlap Strategy, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (2022). DOI 10.1086/721635
2022 doi
-
[58]
Wallace, The emergent multiverse: Quantum theory according to the Everett interpretation (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012)
D. Wallace, The emergent multiverse: Quantum theory according to the Everett interpretation (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012)
2012
-
[59]
Emery, Against Radical Quantum Ontologies, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 95(3), 564 (2017)
N. Emery, Against Radical Quantum Ontologies, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 95(3), 564 (2017)
2017
-
[60]
da Costa, O
N. da Costa, O. Bueno, in Brazilian Studies in Philosophy and History of Science , Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science , vol. 290, ed. by D. Krause, A. Videira (Springer, Dordrecht, 2011), pp. 301–312
2011
-
[61]
Teller, Whither constructive empiricism?, Philosophical Studies 106, 123 (2001)
P. Teller, Whither constructive empiricism?, Philosophical Studies 106, 123 (2001)
2001
-
[62]
van Fraassen, Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980)
B.C. van Fraassen, Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980)
1980
-
[63]
Anderson, What Is Realistic about Putnam’s Internal Realism?, Philosophical Topics 20, 49 (1992)
D.L. Anderson, What Is Realistic about Putnam’s Internal Realism?, Philosophical Topics 20, 49 (1992)
1992
-
[64]
Albert, A guess at the riddle: Essays on the physical underpinnings of quantum mechanics(Harvard University Press, 2023)
D.Z. Albert, A guess at the riddle: Essays on the physical underpinnings of quantum mechanics(Harvard University Press, 2023)
2023
-
[65]
Healey, Quantum theory: A pragmatist approach, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63(4), 729 (2012)
R. Healey, Quantum theory: A pragmatist approach, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63(4), 729 (2012). DOI 10.1093/bjps/axr054
2012 doi
-
[66]
van Fraassen, in Paradigms and Paradoxes: The Philosophical Challenge of the Quantum Domain , ed
B.C. van Fraassen, in Paradigms and Paradoxes: The Philosophical Challenge of the Quantum Domain , ed. by R. Colodny (University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 1972), pp. 303–366
1972
-
[67]
Bueno, Constructive Empiricism, Partial Structures and the Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Quanta 3 (2014)
O. Bueno, Constructive Empiricism, Partial Structures and the Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Quanta 3 (2014). DOI 10.12743/quanta.v3i1.19
2014 doi
-
[68]
North, in The Wave Function: Essays on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics, ed
J. North, in The Wave Function: Essays on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics, ed. by A. Ney, D.Z. Albert (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013), pp. 184–202
2013
-
[69]
Albert, in In Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal , ed
D.Z. Albert, in In Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal , ed. by J. Cushing, A. Fine, S. Goldstein (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996), pp. 277–284
1996
Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.