Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 82 references

Superdeterminism, the paper argues, escapes objections only by assuming the strong fundamentality it would need to prove, while its best-developed model, Invariant Set Theory, rests on a confused priority monism.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 06:18 UTC pith:JQQQWFBG

load-bearing objection The NSD petitio critique is genuinely new and useful; the IST 'confused monism' conclusion rests on an unargued Proposition 7 and should be softened. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.14316 v2 pith:JQQQWFBG submitted 2026-01-19 physics.hist-ph quant-ph

The burden of Fundamentality: Metaphysical ambiguities and the issue of Superdeterminism

Gabriele Cafiero , Luca Molinari , Jonte R. Hance This is my paper
classification physics.hist-ph quant-ph
keywords superdeterminismBell's theoremstatistical independencefundamentalitypriority monismInvariant Set Theorymereologymetaphysics of physics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to establish that superdeterminism, as usually defended, is not a scientific theory but a metaphysical one. It splits superdeterministic models into naive (NSD), metaphysical (MSD), and toy (TSD) categories, then argues that naive superdeterminism can only deflect standard objections by presupposing that it is a strongly fundamental theory—a premise it never earns, making the defense circular. Turning to the leading MSD model, Invariant Set Theory, the paper argues that its holism commits it to priority monism, but because its fundamental whole is non-spatio-temporal, the parthood relation needed to make monism intelligible fails. The conclusion is that superdeterminism currently has no methodologically clean escape route, and that the fundamentality of a theory must be demonstrated rather than assumed.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is twofold. First, naive superdeterminism—the bare assertion that measurement settings are statistically dependent on hidden variables—cannot answer objections about fine-tuning or the impossibility of science unless it presents itself as part of a strongly fundamental theory, typically a Theory of Everything. Since no such theory is supplied, the fundamentality claim is a premise, not a result, making NSD a circular premise. Second, the most developed attempt at a fundamental superdeterministic theory, Invariant Set Theory (IST), is a confused priority monism: IST's fundamental whole is non-spatio-temporal, no pluralistic basis can satisfy the completeness requirem

What carries the argument

The argument runs on two wheels. The first is a tripartite taxonomy of superdeterminism—naive, metaphysical, toy—separating 'we just violate statistical independence' from 'we are building the fundamental theory that justifies doing so.' The second is the formal machinery of priority monism: basic objects defined via metaphysical dependence, a covering/completeness constraint, a no-parthood constraint, and the definition that monism holds when exactly one basic object exists. Applied to Invariant Set Theory, the machinery shows no pluralistic basis can cover the cosmos, forcing priority monism; but since the fundamental whole is non-spatio-temporal and parthood allegedly requires spacetime,

Load-bearing premise

The verdict on Invariant Set Theory rests on the unargued premise that 'being a part of' only makes sense within a spatio-temporal framework; if a non-spatial, purely logical notion of parthood is coherent, the charge of confused monism loses its force.

What would settle it

Develop a fully explicit non-spatio-temporal mereology—parts defined by logical composition rather than location—and show it makes the claim 'the cosmos is fundamental and spacetime regions are its derived parts' coherent within Invariant Set Theory; that would refute the paper's Proposition 7. Alternatively, a complete superdeterministic model that independently satisfies the strong-fundamentality criteria (predictive at all scales, non-perturbative, natural, background-independent) would falsify the paper's claim that naive superdeterminism can only assume, never earn, fundamentality.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, superdeterminists can no longer gesture at a future Theory of Everything to deflect Bell-theorem criticisms; they must either exhibit a theory satisfying the standard criteria for strong fundamentality (predictive at all scales, non-perturbative, natural, background-independent, unified, unique, consistent, definite) or admit their model is a toy.
  • The debate over superdeterminism shifts from questions of truth or plausibility to a methodological question: has the model earned its claim to fundamentality? Models that explicitly present themselves as toy superdeterminism (TSD) are untouched by the critique.
  • Invariant Set Theory, and any similar 'supermeasured' theory, must either develop a workable non-spatio-temporal (purely logical) mereology or accept that its own metaphysics undermines it; as it stands, the paper concludes IST's parthood relation is unintelligible.
  • The same mereological test can be applied to other would-be fundamental superdeterministic programs (e.g., cellular-automaton models): do they admit a pluralistic basis, and if monistic, can they make parthood meaningful without spacetime?
  • The methodological principle generalizes: no physical theory may assume its own fundamentality solely to protect itself from criticism; that move converts a scientific proposal into a metaphysical one.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the paper's Proposition 7 is the weakest link, a defender of IST could reply with a purely logical mereology in which parthood is defined without spatial reference; the paper acknowledges this possibility but notes it is not yet developed. A worked-out version would not necessarily rescue IST empirically but would blunt the 'confused monism' charge.
  • The same 'burden of fundamentality' argument could be aimed at other quantum-gravity or interpretations-of-QM programs that justify their assumptions by promising a final theory; the paper's taxonomy may provide a template for evaluating such deferrals.
  • One testable consequence: the paper predicts that future MSD-type superdeterministic models will exhibit the same pattern—ad hoc physical details fleshed out to justify a presupposed fundamentality. Watching whether a new MSD model appears that does not fit this pattern would test the conjecture.
  • The distinction between naively assuming and actually demonstrating fundamentality could be operationalized: for any theory claiming strong fundamentality, check whether the criteria in the standard list are argued for from empirical evidence or simply asserted as protective premises.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper distinguishes three forms of superdeterminism—naïve (NSD), metaphysical (MSD), and toy (TSD)—and argues that NSD deflects objections only by assuming, rather than demonstrating, that it is a fundamental theory, thereby becoming a metaphysical rather than scientific proposal (Sec. IV). It then analyzes Invariant Set Theory (IST) as the most developed MSD model, arguing in Sec. VI that IST's holism commits it to priority monism, but that because IST's fundamental structure is non-spatio-temporal, the parthood relation cannot serve as a fundamentality device, leaving IST in a state of 'profound metaphysical unpalatability' (Prop. 8). The paper concludes that superdeterminism currently has no viable escape route and that theories should demonstrate rather than assume fundamentality.

Significance. The paper provides a useful and clearly presented taxonomy of superdeterministic positions and offers a close, well-documented reconstruction of the fundamentality-based strategy in NSD defenses, particularly in Andreoletti & Vervoort. The application of Schaffer's priority monism to IST is a novel and potentially fruitful move, and the formal apparatus in Sec. VI.A is a helpful starting point for discussing mereological foundations of supermeasured theories. The NSD critique, if accepted, is a genuine contribution to the methodological literature on superdeterminism. However, the IST-based second claim is not currently established: it rests on an unargued premise about parthood and spacetime, and the generalization from IST to all MSD models is explicitly conjectural. Because the paper's overall thesis depends on both legs, the significance of the result is contingent on repairing these gaps.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VI.C, Prop. 7 and Prop. 8] Proposition 7 ('The parthood relationship needs a spatio-temporal framework') is asserted without argument, yet it is load-bearing for the conclusion that IST's priority monism is 'confused.' In the same subsection the authors cite L.A. Paul's logical mereology (Ref. [61]) as a 'promising' approach that removes spatial reference from parthood and defines parts via property-conjunction. If such a non-spatiotemporal mereology is coherent, Prop. 7 is at best unestablished, and Prop. 8 does not follow. The most that the evidence supports is that IST's proponents have not yet articulated a non-spatiotemporal mereology, not that IST is metaphysically confused. Since Sec. VII's 'no viable escape route' conclusion depends on this second claim, this is a central gap that must be addressed.
  2. [Sec. IV.C and Sec. III.1] The paper states that a NSD theory 'must necessarily present itself as fundamental in order to shield itself from objections.' The evidence provided is the particular defensive strategy of Andreoletti & Vervoort and the appeal to a Theory of Everything. This supports the weaker claim that the NSD defenses examined in the literature assume strong fundamentality; it does not establish a necessity claim over all possible NSD defenses. The modal 'must necessarily' should be qualified to avoid overgeneralization. This does not undermine the petitio charge, but it affects the precision of the paper's central claim.
  3. [Sec. VI.B, Prop. 4] The argument that IST has no pluralist basis moves from the failure of a 'Democritean' base to the conclusion that no pluralist base can satisfy Eq. (21). The intermediate step—'the situation should therefore not change considering non-minimum subsystems'—is underargued. Pluralist bases need not be mereologically minimal, and the paper does not consider non-Democritean pluralist options. Since Prop. 4 is a premise for Prop. 5 (IST supports priority monism), the monism conclusion is weaker than claimed. This is separable from Prop. 7 but reinforces the need to rework Sec. VI.
  4. [Sec. VII and Sec. III] The conclusion that 'superdeterminism has no viable escape route (so far)' is stronger than the analysis supports. Only one MSD model, IST, is examined in detail, and the paper itself labels the extension to all MSD models as a conjecture ('While we do not prove this conjecture'). The final section should clearly separate the established claims—NSD's illegitimate reliance on assumed fundamentality and IST's currently undeveloped mereology—from the conjectural claim about MSD models generally.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV] Typographical error: 'Androletti' should be 'Andreoletti' in the discussion of the response to Baas & Le Bihan.
  2. [Sec. IV.A] 'Baptiste & Le Bihan' should be 'Baas & Le Bihan' to match the reference list and the standard author name.
  3. [Sec. VI.C] The phrase 'from the Sections IV and V' should likely be 'Sections V and VI', since Proposition 1 is established in Sec. V.A and the monism argument is in Sec. VI.
  4. [Sec. V.B, Eq. (10)] The notation is inconsistent: Eq. (1) uses the conditional density ρ(λ|a), while Eq. (10) introduces ρBell = ρ(λ,a) μ(λ,a) as a joint density. Please clarify the relation between these objects and harmonize notation.
  5. [References] In Ref. [11], 'Proceedings of teh Royal Society A' should be 'Proceedings of the Royal Society A.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper's central arguments rest on external sources and explicit conditional reasoning; the unargued Proposition 7 is an unsupported premise, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the NSD critique (Sec. IV) is an accusation that NSD commits petitio principii; the paper itself does not define fundamentality in terms of its own conclusion, but borrows Crowther's independent criteria (Def. IV.1) and documents Andreoletti & Vervoort's actual responses. The MSD critique is built from external primary sources — Palmer for IST's non-spatiotemporal holism and Schaffer for the monism/pluralism framework — rather than from the paper's own prior results. The conclusion that IST's monism is confused depends on Prop. 7 ('The parthood relationship needs a spatio-temporal framework'), which is asserted without argument and sits in tension with the paper's own citation to L.A. Paul's non-spatiotemporal logical mereology as 'promising' though 'underdeveloped.' However, asserting an unsupported premise is a gap in justification, not an instance of a result being equivalent to its input by construction. The self-citations (e.g., [3], [11], [27], [62]) are descriptive pointers to prior work on supermeasured theories or taxonomy; none of the paper's central derivations reduce to those citations. No circular step is exhibited, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No empirical parameters are fitted. The central argument depends on imported metaphysical frameworks (Schaffer's mereology, Crowther's fundamentality criteria) and on an unproved premise about parthood. The NSD/MSD/TSD categories are classifications, not ontic inventions, so they are not counted as invented entities.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Schaffer's mereological framework: covering (Eq. 21), no-parthood (Eq. 22), and definitions of priority monism/pluralism.
    Adopted wholesale from Schaffer (refs [53–55]); the IST analysis is expressed in this framework and its conclusions inherit its adequacy conditions.
  • domain assumption Proposition 2: monism and pluralism are general metaphysical theories and, therefore, if true, necessarily true.
    Used to infer that failure of pluralism entails monism (Sec. VI.A); the modal claim is imported from Schaffer without independent defense.
  • ad hoc to paper Proposition 7: the parthood relation needs a spatio-temporal framework.
    Introduced in Sec. VI.C to show IST's monism is confused; unproved, and in tension with the logical mereology cited later in the same section.
  • domain assumption Crowther's list of strong-fundamentality criteria (Def. IV.1).
    Provides the standard against which NSD is measured; imported from [34] without critical examination.
  • domain assumption Wharton-Argaman causal-model framework for Bell's theorem (Sec. II).
    Used to define superdeterminism and measurement independence; imported from [20].
  • ad hoc to paper Conjecture that all MSD models, not just IST, will exhibit similar metaphysical confusion.
    Explicitly not proven in Sec. III but relied on for the general conclusion in Sec. VII.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19335 in / 13301 out tokens · 137087 ms · 2026-08-04T06:18:20.981612+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this paper we approach the problem of superdeterminism from a novel point of view, highlighting its character as a more metaphysical than scientific proposition. First, we introduce a distinction between two types of superdeterministic theories, na\"ive (NSD) and metaphysical (MSD), and argue how NSD presents significant epistemic flaws. We show how NSD justifies itself through claims to fundamentality, thus connoting itself as a metaphysical theory rather than a scientific one. We finally illustrate that the most developed MSD model so far, Invariant Set Theory, implicitly proposes a confused form of priority monism. Our paper thus reinforces the thesis that theories should demonstrate rather than assume fundamentality and that it is methodologically flawed for a theory to assume its own fundamentality for the sole purpose of defending against criticisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.14316 by Gabriele Cafiero, Jonte R. Hance, Luca Molinari.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Two different SI-violating models, for a bipartite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Simplified diagram of the CHSH experiment [14]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Additional parameters are denoted byU.Qis the sumU+O of all non-input parameters

    Models are characterised by well-defined input pa- rametersIand output parametersO. Additional parameters are denoted byU.Qis the sumU+O of all non-input parameters

  2. [2]

    Within this frame- work, deterministic models are those in which a complete specification of the inputsIuniquely de- termines the non-input parametersQ

    The models considered are characterised by space– time-based parameters, each associated with a lo- cation in ordinary space–time. Within this frame- work, deterministic models are those in which a complete specification of the inputsIuniquely de- termines the non-input parametersQ. Stochastic models, by contrast, do not predict unique values forQ; rather...

  3. [3]

    Likewise, conditional probabilities 2 The specific scenario EPR was just constituted of conjugate vari- ables, which one can model with hidden variables

    In accordance with the laws of probability, the full joint probability distributionP I (Q) for all non- input parameters of a model can be used to de- rive marginal distributionsP I (Q1) for any sub- setQ 1 ⊂Q. Likewise, conditional probabilities 2 The specific scenario EPR was just constituted of conjugate vari- ables, which one can model with hidden var...

  4. [4]

    no spooky actions at a distance

    Two models are said to be in IO-agreement if and only if they always produce the same joint proba- bility distribution for the output parameters given a particular set of inputs. In other words, they are models that employ identical input and output sets IandO(when applied to a given system) and that also share the same marginal output probabilities PI (O...

  5. [5]

    Stemming from Brans’ model [24], NSD is the superdeterministic position represented, for example, by Andreoletti & Ver- voort [1] or criticised by Sen & Valentini [22, 23]

    The first category is what we may callna ¨ ıve superdeterminism(NSD). Stemming from Brans’ model [24], NSD is the superdeterministic position represented, for example, by Andreoletti & Ver- voort [1] or criticised by Sen & Valentini [22, 23]. As we shall show in Section IV, in order to de- fend themselves from extant criticisms, models in this category mu...

  6. [6]

    The second category is what we may callmeta- physicalorless-na ¨ ıve superdeterminism(MSD). MSD models overcome the epistemic difficulties we discuss in Section IV, and consists of models constructed to fit the criteria for fundamentality that NSD models simply assume they are part of. Examples of this category include IST (discussed in Section V) and ’t ...

  7. [7]

    The third category is represented by physically credible toy-models of SI violation, which we’ll call Toy Superdeterminism (TSD). The main difference between models in this category and those in either NSD or MSD is that they are explicitly designed as toy models, to reproduce some aspect of the physics of a certain situation, without any claims as to be-...

  8. [8]

    A NSD theory must necessarily present itself as fun- damental in order to shield itself from objections, thereby connoting itself as a theory that is more metaphysical than scientific (as we argue in Sec- tion IV)

  9. [9]

    some kind of cosmic 6 principle, a fundamental law, or a hand of God, prevent- ing us from using those systems to set the measurement settings

    The metaphysical theory constructed on the basis of NSD’s requirements (MSD) is confused and un- palatable. We conjecture this in Section V, and we show it formally for IST, the most well-developed example of MSD so far. IV. AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL PROBLEM Having explored what is meant by superdeterminism, we will now show howna ¨ ıve superdeterminismmakes il-...

  10. [10]

    the dependence relation she[the superdeter- minist]contemplates involves a highly specific class of variablesλ, not just the “usual

    by stating that “the dependence relation she[the superdeter- minist]contemplates involves a highly specific class of variablesλ, not just the “usual” phys- ical properties[. . . ]these variables are part of a theory that describes the Big Bang (and everything after it), so a (still elusive) theory of quantum gravity, or rather a (still more elusive) “Theo...

  11. [11]

    Superdeterminism is notad hoc

  12. [12]

    Avoidingad hoc-ness is a feature of a (strongly) fundamental theory

  13. [13]

    Androletti and Vervoort state that

    Thus superdeterminism has a feature of a (strongly) fundamental theory. Androletti and Vervoort state that

  14. [14]

    Superdeterminism is (part of) a fundamental the- ory; 2.Ad hoc-ness must be avoided by any fundamental theory

  15. [15]

    is completely incapable of expanding, by its own means, our knowledge of what exists

    Therefore, the accusation of superdeterminism be- ingad hoccannot be made. But, regardless of this reformulation, without offering any further model or evidence for this fundamental the- ory, the argument remains unacceptable. In fact, the er- roneous idea of deriving truthfulness of a theory in virtue of its fundamental status is far from being an exclus...

  16. [16]

    Superdeter- minism: a reappraisal.Synthese, 200(5):361, Aug 2022

    Giacomo Andreoletti and Louis Vervoort. Superdeter- minism: a reappraisal.Synthese, 200(5):361, Aug 2022. doi:10.1007/s11229-022-03832-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11229-022-03832-6 2022

  17. [17]

    Hance and Sabine Hossenfelder

    Jonte R. Hance and Sabine Hossenfelder. What does it take to solve the measurement problem?Journal of Physics Communications, 6(10):102001, 2022.doi:10. 48550/arXiv.2206.10445

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.10445 2022

  18. [18]

    Jonte R. Hance. Counterfactual restrictions and Bell’s theorem.Journal of Physics Communications, 8(12):122001, 2024.doi:10.1088/2399-6528/ad9b6d

    work page doi:10.1088/2399-6528/ad9b6d 2024

  19. [19]

    Rethinking su- perdeterminism.Frontiers in Physics, 8:139, 2020

    Sabine Hossenfelder and Tim Palmer. Rethinking su- perdeterminism.Frontiers in Physics, 8:139, 2020

    2020

  20. [20]

    electrons don’t think

    Tim Maudlin. Comment on “electrons don’t think”. Blog post onBackRe(Action). Retrieved December 1, 2019. URL:https://backreaction.blogspot.com/ 2019/01/electrons-dont-think.html. 7 There has been speculation about potential experimental proce- dures for obtaining evidential support in favour of IST, particu- larly through the foreseeable developments in q...

    2019

  21. [21]

    Bell’s theorem, quantum proba- bilities, and superdeterminism

    Eddy Keming Chen. Bell’s theorem, quantum proba- bilities, and superdeterminism. In Eleanor Knox and Alastair Wilson, editors,The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Physics, pages 184–199. Routledge, 2021. doi:10.4324/9781315623818

    work page doi:10.4324/9781315623818 2021

  22. [22]

    What does the world look like according to superdeterminism?The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 74(3):555– 572, 2023.doi:10.1086/714815

    Augustin Baas and Baptiste Le Bihan. What does the world look like according to superdeterminism?The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 74(3):555– 572, 2023.doi:10.1086/714815

    work page doi:10.1086/714815 2023

  23. [23]

    Daley, Kevin J

    Patrick J. Daley, Kevin J. Resch, and Robert W. Spekkens. Experimentally adjudicating between different causal accounts of Bell-inequality violations via statisti- cal model selection.Phys. Rev. A, 105:042220, 4 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.105.042220

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.105.042220 2022

  24. [24]

    experimentally adjudicating between different causal ac- counts of bell-inequality violations via statistical model selection

    Jonte R. Hance and Sabine Hossenfelder. Comment on “experimentally adjudicating between different causal ac- counts of bell-inequality violations via statistical model selection”.Phys. Rev. A, 109:026201, Feb 2024. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 109.026201,doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.109.026201

    doi:10.1103/physreva 2024

  25. [25]

    comment on ‘experimentally adjudi- 14 cating between different causal accounts of bell-inequality violations via statistical model selection’

    Patrick J. Daley, Kevin J. Resch, and Robert W. Spekkens. Reply to “comment on ‘experimentally adjudi- 14 cating between different causal accounts of bell-inequality violations via statistical model selection’ ”.Phys. Rev. A, 111:016201, Jan 2025. URL:https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.111.016201,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevA.111.016201

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.111.016201 2025

  26. [26]

    Taxonomy for Physics Beyond Quan- tum Mechanics.Proceedings of teh Royal Society A, 480(20230779), 2024.doi:10.1098/rspa.2023.0779

    Emily Adlam, Jonte R Hance, Sabine Hossenfelder, and Tim N Palmer. Taxonomy for Physics Beyond Quan- tum Mechanics.Proceedings of teh Royal Society A, 480(20230779), 2024.doi:10.1098/rspa.2023.0779

    arXiv 2024

  27. [28]

    Mordecai Waegell and Kelvin J. McQueen. From statisti- cal dependence to the space of possible superdeterminis- tic theories.European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 15(4):56, Oct 2025.doi:10.1007/s13194-025-00693-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s13194-025-00693-x 2025

  28. [29]

    Clauser, Michael A

    John F. Clauser, Michael A. Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard A. Holt. Proposed experiment to test lo- cal hidden-variable theories.Physical Review Letters, 23(15):880–884, 1969.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.23. 880

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.23 1969

  29. [30]

    J. S. Bell. On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics Physique Fizika, 1:195–200, Nov 1964.doi:10. 1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195

    1964

  30. [31]

    Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?Physical Review, 47(10):777–780, 1935.doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

    Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?Physical Review, 47(10):777–780, 1935.doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

    doi:10.1103/physrev.47.777 1935

  31. [32]

    The two Bell’s theorems of John Bell

    H M Wiseman. The two Bell’s theorems of John Bell. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 47(42):424001, oct 2014.doi:10.1088/1751-8113/47/ 42/424001

    doi:10.1088/1751-8113/47/ 2014

  32. [33]

    Wiseman and Eric G

    Howard M. Wiseman and Eric G. Cavalcanti. Causarum investigatio and the two Bell’s theorems of John Bell. In Reinhold Bertlmann and Anton Zeilinger, editors,Quan- tum [Un]Speakables II: Half a Century of Bell’s Theorem, pages 119–142. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-38987-5_6

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-38987-5_6 2017

  33. [34]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2 edition, 2009

    Judea Pearl.Causality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2 edition, 2009

    2009

  34. [35]

    K. B. Wharton and N. Argaman. Colloquium: Bell’s theorem and locally mediated reformulations of quantum mechanics.Reviews of Modern Physics, 92(2):021002, 2020.doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.92.021002

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.92.021002 2020

  35. [36]

    Counterfactual reasoning, real- ism and quantum mechanics: Much ado about noth- ing?Erkenntnis, 84(5):1103–1118, 2019.doi:10.1007/ s10670-018-9997-4

    Federico Laudisa. Counterfactual reasoning, real- ism and quantum mechanics: Much ado about noth- ing?Erkenntnis, 84(5):1103–1118, 2019.doi:10.1007/ s10670-018-9997-4

    2019

  36. [37]

    Superdeter- ministic hidden-variables models i: Non-equilibrium and signalling.Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 476:20200212, 2020.doi:10.1098/rspa.2020.0212

    Indrajit Sen and Antony Valentini. Superdeter- ministic hidden-variables models i: Non-equilibrium and signalling.Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 476:20200212, 2020.doi:10.1098/rspa.2020.0212

    arXiv 2020

  37. [38]

    Superdeterministic hidden-variables models ii: Conspiracy.Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 476:20200214, 2020.doi:10.1098/ rspa.2020.0214

    Indrajit Sen and Antony Valentini. Superdeterministic hidden-variables models ii: Conspiracy.Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 476:20200214, 2020.doi:10.1098/ rspa.2020.0214

    arXiv 2020

  38. [39]

    Carl H. Brans. Bell’s theorem does not eliminate fully causal hidden variables.International Journal of The- oretical Physics, 27(2):219–226, 2 1988.doi:10.1007/ BF00670750

    1988

  39. [40]

    Fundamental Theo- ries of Physics

    Gerard t Hooft.The cellular automaton interpre- tation of quantum mechanics. Fundamental Theo- ries of Physics. Springer Nature, 2016.doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-41285-6

    2016

  40. [41]

    Garza and Jonte R

    Alejandro J. Garza and Jonte R. Hance. Quantum- like correlations from local hidden-variable theories under conservation law, 2025.arXiv:2511.06043

    arXiv 2025

  41. [42]

    Hance, Sabine Hossenfelder, and Tim N

    Jonte R. Hance, Sabine Hossenfelder, and Tim N. Palmer. Supermeasured: Violating bell-statistical in- dependence without violating physical statistical inde- pendence.Foundations of Physics, 52:81, 2022.doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2108.07292

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.07292 2022

  42. [43]

    Ciepielewski, Elias Okon, and Daniel Su- darsky

    Gerardo S. Ciepielewski, Elias Okon, and Daniel Su- darsky. On superdeterministic rejections of settings in- dependence.The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 74(2):435–467, 2023.doi:10.1086/714819

    work page doi:10.1086/714819 2023

  43. [44]

    A Toy Model for Local and Deterministic Wave-function Collapse

    Sandro Donadi and Sabine Hossenfelder. A toy model for local and deterministic wave-function collapse.Physical Review A, 106(2):022212, 2022.doi:10.48550/arXiv. 2010.01327

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.01327 2022

  44. [45]

    Jeffrey A. Barrett. Empirical adequacy and the availabil- ity of reliable records in quantum mechanics.Philosophy of Science, 63:49–64, 1996.doi:10.1086/289893

    work page doi:10.1086/289893 1996

  45. [46]

    Wojciech H. Zurek. Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical.Physics Today, 44(10):36–44, 1991. doi:10.1063/1.881293

    doi:10.1063/1.881293 1991

  46. [47]

    The role of decoherence in quan- tum mechanics

    Guido Bacciagaluppi. The role of decoherence in quan- tum mechanics. In Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodel- man, editors,The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, spring 2025 edition, 2025. URL:https://plato.stanford. edu/archives/spr2025/entries/qm-decoherence/

    2025

  47. [48]

    Tuomas E. Tahko. Fundamentality. In Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman, editors,The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford Uni- versity, Winter 2023 edition, 2023

    2023

  48. [49]

    When do we stop digging? Conditions on a fundamental theory of physics

    Karen Crowther. When do we stop digging? Conditions on a fundamental theory of physics. In Anthony Aguirre, Brendan Foster, and Zeeya Merali, editors,What Is Fundamental?, The Frontiers Collection, pages 123–133. Springer, 2019.doi:10.1007/978-3-030-11301-8_13

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-11301-8_13 2019

  49. [50]

    Fundamentality in metaphysics and the philosophy of physics

    Matteo Morganti. Fundamentality in metaphysics and the philosophy of physics. part ii: The philosophy of physics.Philosophy Compass, 15(10):e12703, 2020.doi: 10.1111/phc3.12703

    work page doi:10.1111/phc3.12703 2020

  50. [51]

    Appendix: Ontological relativity and fun- damentality – is qft the fundamental theory?Synthese, 136(1):25–30, 2003.doi:10.1023/a:1024199931657

    Tian Yu Cao. Appendix: Ontological relativity and fun- damentality – is qft the fundamental theory?Synthese, 136(1):25–30, 2003.doi:10.1023/a:1024199931657

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1024199931657 2003

  51. [52]

    Fundamentality in metaphysics and the philosophy of physics

    Matteo Morganti. Fundamentality in metaphysics and the philosophy of physics. part i: Metaphysics.Philos- ophy Compass, 15(7):e12690, 2020.doi:10.1111/phc3. 12690

    work page doi:10.1111/phc3 2020

  52. [53]

    P. W. Anderson. More is different.Science, 177(4047):393–396, 1972.doi:10.1126/science.177. 4047.393

    doi:10.1126/science.177 1972

  53. [54]

    Triton,

    Hans Dehmelt. Triton,... electron,... cosmon,...: An in- finite regression?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 86(22):8618–8619, 1989.doi:10.1073/pnas. 86.22.8618

    doi:10.1073/pnas 1989

  54. [55]

    Humean super- venience, composition as identity and quantum wholes

    Claudio Calosi and Matteo Morganti. Humean super- venience, composition as identity and quantum wholes. Erkenntnis, 81(6):1173–1194, Dec 2016.doi:10.1007/ s10670-015-9789-z

    2016

  55. [56]

    Universale Laterza, 2000

    Immanuel Kant.Critica della ragion pura. Universale Laterza, 2000

    2000

  56. [57]

    Values in science

    Ernan McMullin. Values in science. InPSA: Proceed- ings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science 15 association, volume 2, pages 2–28. Cambridge University Press, 1982

    1982

  57. [58]

    University of Chicago press, 2024

    Thomas S Kuhn.The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. University of Chicago press, 2024

    2024

  58. [59]

    London MacMillan, 1920

    James Clerk Maxwell.Matter and motion. London MacMillan, 1920

    1920

  59. [60]

    Cambridge, University Press, 2022

    William Thomson and Peter Guthrie Tait.Treatise on natural philosophy. Cambridge, University Press, 2022

    2022

  60. [61]

    Courier Corporation, 1997

    Max Jammer.Concepts of mass in classical and modern physics. Courier Corporation, 1997

    1997

  61. [62]

    Mach’s concept of mass: Program and defini- tion.Synthese, 18(2/3):216–233, 1968

    A Koslow. Mach’s concept of mass: Program and defini- tion.Synthese, 18(2/3):216–233, 1968

    1968

  62. [63]

    Cambridge University Press, 2014

    Carlo Rovelli and Francesca Vidotto.Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity. Cambridge University Press, 2014. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107706910

    doi:10.1017/cbo9781107706910 2014

  63. [64]

    Superdeterminism without conspiracy,

    Tim Palmer. Superdeterminism without conspiracy,

  64. [65]

    Thinking outside the toolbox: Towards a more productive engagement be- tween metaphysics and philosophy of physics.European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 8(1):42–59, 2012

    Steven French and Kerry McKenzie. Thinking outside the toolbox: Towards a more productive engagement be- tween metaphysics and philosophy of physics.European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 8(1):42–59, 2012

    2012

  65. [66]

    Tim Palmer. The invariant set postulate: a new geomet- ric framework for the foundations of quantum theory and the role played by gravity.Proceedings of the Royal So- ciety A, 465:3187–3207, 2009.doi:10.1098/rspa.2009. 0080

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.2009 2009

  66. [67]

    Lorenz, Godel and Penrose: new per- spectives on determinism and causality in fundamen- tal physics.Contemporary Physics, 55(3):1–29, 2014

    Tim Palmer. Lorenz, Godel and Penrose: new per- spectives on determinism and causality in fundamen- tal physics.Contemporary Physics, 55(3):1–29, 2014. doi:10.1080/00107514.2014.908624

    arXiv 2014

  67. [68]

    Invariant set theory, 2016.arXiv:1605

    Tim Palmer. Invariant set theory, 2016.arXiv:1605. 01051

    2016

  68. [69]

    Monism: The priority of the whole

    Jonathan Schaffer. Monism: The priority of the whole. The Philosophical Review, 119(1):31–76, 01 2010.doi: 10.1215/00318108-2009-025

    work page doi:10.1215/00318108-2009-025 2010

  69. [70]

    Quan- tum holism: nonseparability as common ground

    Jenann Ismael and Jonathan Schaffer. Quan- tum holism: nonseparability as common ground. Synthese, 197(10):4131–4160, 2020.doi:10.1007/ s11229-016-1201-2

    2020

  70. [71]

    Jonathan Schaffer. Monism. In Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Winter 2018 edition, 2018

    2018

  71. [72]

    Jonathan Schaffer. Monism. In Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman, editors,The Stanford Encyclopedia of Phi- losophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, fall 2024 edition, 2024

    2024

  72. [73]

    Bell inequality violation with free choice and local causality on the invariant set, 2019.arXiv: 1903.10537

    Tim Palmer. Bell inequality violation with free choice and local causality on the invariant set, 2019.arXiv: 1903.10537

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  73. [74]

    Priority monism beyond space- time.Metaphysica, 19(1):95–111, 2018.doi:10.1515/ mp-2018-0005

    Baptiste Le Bihan. Priority monism beyond space- time.Metaphysica, 19(1):95–111, 2018.doi:10.1515/ mp-2018-0005

    2018

  74. [75]

    Spacetime the one substance.Philo- sophical Studies, 145:131–148, Jul 2009.doi:10.1007/ s11098-009-9386-6

    Jonathan Schaffer. Spacetime the one substance.Philo- sophical Studies, 145:131–148, Jul 2009.doi:10.1007/ s11098-009-9386-6

    2009

  75. [76]

    The (a)temporal emergence of spacetime.Philosophy of Science, 85(December):1190–1203, 2018

    Nick Huggett and Christian W¨ uthrich. The (a)temporal emergence of spacetime.Philosophy of Science, 85(December):1190–1203, 2018

    2018

  76. [77]

    Laurie A. Paul. Logical parts.Noˆ us, 36(4):578–596, 2002

    2002

  77. [78]

    Exper- imental tests of invariant set theory.Physica Scripta, 100(6):065123, may 2025.doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ add9d7

    Jonte R Hance, Tim N Palmer, and John Rarity. Exper- imental tests of invariant set theory.Physica Scripta, 100(6):065123, may 2025.doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ add9d7

    doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ 2025

  78. [79]

    Testing quantum mechanics with quantum computers: Qubit information capacity,

    Tim Palmer. Testing quantum mechanics with quantum computers: Qubit information capacity,

  79. [81]

    Oxford University Press, 2007

    James Ladyman and Don Ross.Every thing must go: Metaphysics naturalized. Oxford University Press, 2007

    2007

  80. [83]

    Oxford University Press, 2007

    Tim Maudlin.The metaphysics within physics. Oxford University Press, 2007

    2007

Showing first 80 references.