Spooky Action at No Distance: On the individuation of quantum mechanical systems

Recent experiments have perfectly verified the fact that quantum correlations between two entangled particles are stronger than any classical, local pre-quantum worldview allows. This is famously called the EPR paradox first conceived as a thought experiment and decades later realized in the lab. We discuss in depth the nature of the paradox and show that the problematics it presents is first and foremost epistemological. After briefly exploring resolutions to the paradox that after many decades of discourse still remain controversial, we argue that the paradox is rooted in the failure of our current metaphysical scheme, being the foundation of our knowledge, to accommodate and cohere our knowledge of the phenomena of entanglement. We then develop and make the case for a novel and more fundamental resolution of the paradox by changing the underlying metaphysical foundation from one based on individuals to a one based on individuation. We discuss in detail how in the light of this new scheme concepts central to the paradox such as realism, causality and locality are adjusted to the effect that the paradox is resolved without giving up these concepts so fundamental to our thinking. We conclude with a brief note about the important role of metaphysics to the progress of knowledge and our understanding of reality.

💡 Research Summary

The paper begins by revisiting the classic EPR paradox and Bell’s theorem, emphasizing that experimental violations of Bell inequalities have decisively ruled out any theory that combines locality with a classical notion of realism. The author argues that the paradox is not merely a physical inconsistency but an epistemological crisis rooted in the metaphysical framework that treats physical systems as fixed, individuated objects. To overcome this, the author introduces Gilbert Simondon’s theory of individuation, which conceives entities as ongoing processes of differentiation and relational becoming rather than static individuals. In this view, an entangled pair is already part of an indivisible individuation process; attempting to isolate each particle as an independent individual is a category mistake.

The discussion then shifts to the logical foundations of Bell’s inequalities, showing that they are special cases of George Boole’s “conditions of possible experience,” which are constraints on probabilities derived from logical relations among events measured on a single sample. Quantum experiments necessarily involve complementary observables that cannot be measured simultaneously on the same sample, forcing the use of distinct ensembles. This methodological necessity leads to violations of Boole’s conditions, revealing that quantum statistics do not fit the classical probability structure assumed by local realism.

Next, the paper incorporates Henri Bergson’s philosophy of space and duration. Bergson rejects a homogeneous, static conception of space, proposing instead that space is continuously differentiated in time. Applying this to entangled systems, the spatial separation between particles is itself subject to individuation; distance is not a fixed background but a relational, dynamic feature of the whole system. Consequently, the “spooky action at a distance” that Einstein feared is reinterpreted as a manifestation of non‑local relational structure inherent in the individuation process, not as a superluminal causal signal.

The author further revises the concepts of realism and causality. Realism becomes the claim that potentials (fields of possibilities) exist, rather than that particles possess definite properties independent of measurement. Causality is no longer a linear cause‑to‑effect chain but a network of mutual formation (inter‑formation) within the ongoing individuation. Under this metaphysical scheme, Bell‑inequality violations are not paradoxical anomalies but expected outcomes of measurements performed on distinct samples drawn from a process that does not admit a single, stable set of properties.

Finally, the paper argues that adopting an individuation‑based metaphysics resolves the EPR paradox without abandoning realism, locality, or causality, but by redefining them in dynamic, relational terms. This approach offers an alternative to hidden‑variable or many‑worlds interpretations, providing a unified framework that accommodates both quantum and classical phenomena. The author concludes by emphasizing the indispensable role of metaphysical inquiry in advancing scientific understanding and achieving a coherent picture of reality.