Arenhart, J. R. B. (2017). “The received view on quantum non-individuality: Formal and metaphysical analysis,” Synthese, 194: 1323–1347.Google Scholar

Bueno, O. (2014). “Why identity is fundamental,” American Philosophical Quarterly, 51: 325–332.Google Scholar

Bueno, O. (2019). “Weyl, identity, indistinguishability, realism,” in Cordero, A. (ed.), Philosophers Look at Quantum Mechanics. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Cantor, G. (1915/1955). Contributions to the Founding of the Theory of Transfinite Numbers. New York: Dover.Google Scholar

Cao, T. (ed.) (1999). Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Field Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Church, A. (1956). Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

da Costa, N. C. A. and Bueno, O. (2009). “Non-reflexive logics,” Revista Brasileira de Filosofia, 232: 181–196.Google Scholar

da Costa, N. C. A., Krause, D., and Bueno, O. (2007). “Paraconsistent logics and paraconsistency,” pp. 791–911 in Jacquette, D. (ed.), Philosophy of Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Domenech, G., Holik, F., and Krause, D. (2008). “Q-Spaces and the foundations of quantum mechanics,” Foundations of Physics, 38: 969–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Falkenburg, B. (2007). Particle Metaphysics: A Critical Account of Subatomic Reality. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Forster, T. (2014). “Quine’s new foundations,” in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/quine-nf/Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1960). “On sense and reference,” pp. 56–78 in Geach, P. and Black, M. (eds.), Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

French, S. and Krause, D. (2006). Identity in Physics: A Historical, Philosophical, and Formal Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heisenberg, W. (1998). “The nature of elementary particles,” pp. 211–222 in Castellani, E. (ed.), Interpreting Bodies: Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern Physics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Holland, P. R. (2010). The Quantum Theory of Motion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Krause, D. (2019). “Does Newtonian space provide identity for quantum systems?,” Foundations of Science, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-018-9561-3Google Scholar

Krause, D. and Arenhart, J. R. B. (2016). “Presenting non-reflexive quantum mechanics: Formalism and metaphysics,” Cadernos de História e Filosofia da Ciência, 4: 59–91.Google Scholar

Krause, D. and Arenhart, J. R. B. (2018). “Quantum non-individuality: Background concepts and possibilities,” pp. 281–306 in Wuppuluri, S. and Doria, F. A.. (eds.), The Map and the Territory: Exploring the Foundations of Science, Thought and Reality. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Lowe, E. J. (2003). “Individuation,” pp. 75–95 in Loux, M. J. and Zimmerman, D. W. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lowe, E. J. (2016). “Non-individuals,” pp. 49–60 in Guay, A. and Pradeu, T., T. (eds.), Individuals Across the Sciences. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Maitland Wright, J. D. (1973). “All operators on a Hilbert space are bounded,” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 79: 1247–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maudlin, T. (2018). “The labyrinth of quantum theory,” https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.01834Google Scholar

Muller, F. A. and Saunders, S. (2008). “Discerning fermions,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59: 499–548.Google Scholar

Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Schrödinger, E. (1996). Nature and the Greeks and Science and Humanism (Foreword by Roger Penrose). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schrödinger, E. (1998). “What is an elementary particle?,” pp. 197–210 in Castellani, E. (ed.), Interpreting Bodies: Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern Physics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Styer, D. F., Balkin, M. S., Becker, K. M., Burns, M. R., Dudley, C. E., Forth, S. T., … Wotherspoon, T. D. (2002). “Nine formulations of quantum mechanics,” American Journal of Physics, 70: 288–297.Google Scholar

Szabó, Z. G. (2018). “Compositionality,” in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/compositionality/Google Scholar

Teller, P. (1998). “Quantum mechanics and haecceities,” pp. 114–141 in Castellani, E. (ed.), Interpreting Bodies: Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern Physics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Weinberg, S. (1992). Dreams of a Final Theory. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar

Weyl, H. (1950). The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics. New York: Dover.Google Scholar

Wilczek, F. and Devine, B. (1987). Longing for Harmonies: Themes and Variations from Modern Physics. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Cramer, J. G. (1986). “The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics,”’ Reviews of Modern Physics, 58: 647–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dugić, M. and Jeknić-Dugić, J. (2012). “Parallel decoherence in composite quantum systems,” Pramana, 79: 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Einstein, A. (1948/1971). “Quantum mechanics and reality,” pp. 168–173 in Born, M. (trans.). The Born-Einstein Letters. London: Walker and Co.Google Scholar

Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N. (1935). “Can quantum mechanical description of reality be considered complete?”, Physical Review, 47: 777–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fields, C. (2010). “Quantum Darwinism requires an extra-theoretical assumption of encoding redundancy,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 49: 2523–2527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

French, S. (2015). “Identity and individuality in quantum theory,” in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/qt-idind/Google Scholar

French, S. and Redhead, M. (1988). “Quantum physics and the identity of indiscernibles,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 39: 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., and Weber, T. (1986). “Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems,” Physical Review D, 34: 470–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Huggett, N. (1999). “Atomic metaphysics,” The Journal of Philosophy, 96: 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joos, J. and Zeh, D. H. (1985). “The emergence of classical properties through interaction with the environment,” Zeitschrift für Physik B, 59: 223–243.Google Scholar

Kastner, R. E. (2012). The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The Reality of Possibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kastner, R. E. (2014). “Einselection of pointer observables: The new H-theorem?”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 48: 56–58.Google Scholar

Kastner, R. E. (2016a). “The Transactional Interpretation and its evolution into the 21st century: An overview,” Philosophy Compass, 11: 923–932. Preprint version: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00660.Google Scholar

Kastner, R. E. (2016b). “The Relativistic Transactional Interpretation: Immune to the Maudlin challenge,” https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.04609Google Scholar

Kastner, R. E. (2017). “On quantum non-unitarity as a basis for the second law of thermodynamics,” Entropy, 19: 106. Preprint version: https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.08734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kelly, J. (2002). “Semiclassical statistical mechanics,” (lecture notes), www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys603/kelly/Notes/Semiclassical.pdfGoogle Scholar

Lewis, D. (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Maudlin, T. (1996). Quantum Nonlocality and Relativity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Albert, D. Z. (2015). After Physics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allori, V., Goldstein, S., Tumulka, R., and Zanghì, N. (2008). “On the common structure of Bohmian mechanics and the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber theory,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59: 353–389.Google Scholar

Allori, V., Goldstein, S., Tumulka, R., and Zanghì, N. (2014). “Predictions and primitive ontology in quantum foundations: A study of examples,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 65: 323–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barrett, J. A. (2014). “Entanglement and disentanglement in relativistic quantum mechanics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 48: 168–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bedingham, D., Dürr, D., Ghirardi, G. C., Goldstein, S., Tumulka, R., and Zanghì, N. (2014). “Matter density and relativistic models of wave function collapse,” Journal of Statistical Physics, 154: 623–631.Google Scholar

Bell, J. S. (2004). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bhogal, H. and Perry, Z. R. (2017). “What the Humean should say about entanglement,” Noûs, 51: 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bohm, D. (1952). “A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables,” Physical Review, 85: 166–179, 180–193.Google Scholar

Brown, H. R., Dewdney, C., and Horton, G. (1995). “Bohm particles and their detection in the light of neutron interferometry,” Foundations of Physics, 25: 329–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, H. R., Elby, A., and Weingard, R. (1996). “Cause and effect in the pilot-wave interpretation of quantum mechanics,” pp. 309–319 in Cushing, J. T., Fine, A., and Goldstein, S. (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science: Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal, Vol. 184. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Callender, C. (2015). “One world, one beable,” Synthese, 192: 3153–3177.Google Scholar

Colin, S. and Struyve, W. (2007). “A Dirac sea pilot-wave model for quantum field theory,” Journal of Physics A, 40: 7309–7341.Google Scholar

Cowan, C. W. and Tumulka, R. (2016). “Epistemology of wave function collapse in quantum physics,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 67: 405–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Curceanu, C., Bartalucci, S., Bassi, A., Bazzi, M., Bertolucci, S., Berucci, C., … Zmeskal, J. (2016). “Spontaneously emitted x-rays: An experimental signature of the dynamical reduction models,” Foundations of Physics, 46: 263–268.Google Scholar

de Broglie, L. (1928). “La nouvelle dynamique des quanta,” pp. 105–132 in Electrons et photons. Rapports et discussions du cinquième Conseil de Physique tenu à Bruxelles du 24 au 29 octobre 1927 sous les auspices de l’Institut International de Physique Solvay. Paris: Gauthier-Villars. English translation: (2009), pp. 341–371 in G. Bacciagaluppi and A. Valentini (eds.), Quantum Theory at the Crossroads. Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

de Broglie, L. (1964). The Current Interpretation of Wave Mechanics. A Critical Study. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Dowker, F. and Herbauts, I. (2005). “The status of the wave function in dynamical collapse models,” Foundations of Physics Letters, 18: 499–518.Google Scholar

Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., Tumulka, R., and Zanghì, N. (2005). “Bell-type quantum field theories,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 38: R1–R43.Google Scholar

Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., and Zanghì, N. (2013). Quantum Physics without Quantum Philosophy. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Egg, M. and Esfeld, M. (2014). “Non-local common cause explanations for EPR,” European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 4: 181–196.Google Scholar

Egg, M. and Esfeld, M. (2015). “Primitive ontology and quantum state in the GRW matter density theory,” Synthese, 192: 3229–3245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Esfeld, M. (2014). “Quantum Humeanism, or: Physicalism without properties,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 64: 453–470.Google Scholar

Esfeld, M. and Deckert, D.-A. (2017). A Minimalist Ontology of the Natural World. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Esfeld, M. and Gisin, N. (2014). “The GRW flash theory: A relativistic quantum ontology of matter in space-time?”, Philosophy of Science, 81: 248–264.Google Scholar

Esfeld, M., Lazarovici, D., Lam, V., and Hubert, M. (2017). “The physics and metaphysics of primitive stuff,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 68: 133–161.Google Scholar

Ghirardi, G. C., Grassi, R., and Benatti, F. (1995). “Describing the macroscopic world: Closing the circle within the dynamical reduction program,” Foundations of Physics, 25: 5–38.Google Scholar

Ghirardi, G. C., Pearle, P., and Rimini, A. (1990). “Markov processes in Hilbert space and continuous spontaneous localization of systems of identical particles,” Physical Review A, 42: 78–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., and Weber, T. (1986). “Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems,” Physical Review D, 34: 470–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Goldstein, S. and Struyve, W. (2007). “On the uniqueness of quantum equilibrium in Bohmian mechanics,” Journal of Statistical Physics, 128: 1197–1209.Google Scholar

Hall, N. (2009). “Humean reductionism about laws of nature,” unpublished manuscript. http://philpapers.org/rec/halhra.Google Scholar

Kochen, S. and Specker, E. (1967). “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics,” Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17: 59–87.Google Scholar

Mach, E. (1919). The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of Its Development, 4th edition. McCormack, T. J. (trans.). Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar

Maudlin, T. (1995). “Three measurement problems,” Topoi, 14: 7–15.Google Scholar

Maudlin, T. (2010). “Can the world be only wave-function?” pp. 121–143 in Saunders, S., Barrett, J., Kent, A., and Wallace, D. (eds.), Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Maudlin, T. (2011). Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, 3rd edition. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Miller, E. (2014). “Quantum entanglement, Bohmian mechanics, and Humean supervenience,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 92: 567–583.Google Scholar

Norsen, T. (2005). “Einstein’s boxes,” American Journal of Physics, 73: 164–176.Google Scholar

Norsen, T. (2014). “The pilot-wave perspective on spin,” American Journal of Physics, 82: 337–348.Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, P., Hiley, B. J., and Pättiniemi, I. (2015). “Bohm’s approach and individuality,” pp. 226–246 in Guay, A. and Pradeu, T. (eds.), Individuals Across the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rovelli, C. (1997). “Halfway through the woods: Contemporary research on space and time,” pp. 180–223 in Earman, J. and Norton, J. (eds.), The Cosmos of Science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar

Schrödinger, E. (1935). “Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik,” Naturwissenschaften, 23: 807–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tumulka, R. (2006). “A relativistic version of the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber model,” Journal of Statistical Physics, 125: 821–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vassallo, A. and Ip, P. H. (2016). “On the conceptual issues surrounding the notion of relational Bohmian dynamics,” Foundations of Physics, 46: 943–972.Google Scholar

Wallace, D. (2014). “Life and death in the tails of the GRW wave function,” arXiv:1407.4746 [quant-ph].Google Scholar

Abarbanel, H. (1983) “The analysis of observed chaotic data in physical systems,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 65: 1331–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Agüero, M., Hnilo, A., Kovalsky, M., and Larotonda, M. (2009). “Time stamping in EPRB experiments: Application on the test of non-ergodic theories,” European Physical Journal D, 55: 705–709.Google Scholar

Agüero, M., Hnilo, A., and Kovalsky, M. (2012). “Time resolved measurement of the Bell’s inequalities and the coincidence-loophole,” Physical Review A, 86: 052121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Agüero, M., Hnilo, A., and Kovalsky, M. (2014). “Measuring the entanglement of photons produced by a nanosecond pulsed source,” Journal of the Optical Society of America B, 31: 3088–3096.Google Scholar

Ballentine, L. E. (1998). Quantum Mechanics. A Modern Development. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar

Bonazzola, C., Hnilo, A., Kovalsky, M., and Tredicce, J. (2015). “Features of the extreme events observed in an all-solid-state laser with saturable absorber,” Physical Review A, 92: 053816.Google Scholar

Buonomano, V. (1978). “A limitation on Bell’s inequality,” Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré, 29A: 379–394.Google Scholar

Clauser, J. and Shimony, A. (1978). “Bell’s theorem: Experimental tests and implications,” Reports on Progress in Physics, 41: 1881–1927.Google Scholar

d’Espagnat, B. (1984). “Nonseparability and the tentative descriptions of reality,” Physics Reports, 110: 201–264.Google Scholar

Gisin, N. (1990). “Weinberg’s non-linear quantum mechanics and superluminal communications,” Physics Letters A, 143: 1–2.Google Scholar

Giustina, M., Versteegh, M. A. M., Wengerowsky, S., Handsteiner, J., Hochrainer, A., Phelan, K., … Zeilinger, A. (2015). “A significant loophole-free test of Bell’s theorem with entangled photons,” Physical Review Letters, 115: 250401.Google Scholar

Goldstein, H. (1950). Classical Mechanics. Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley.Google Scholar

Hnilo, A. (1994). “On testing objective local theories by using GHZ states,” Foundations of Physics, 24: 139–162.Google Scholar

Hnilo, A. (2012). “Observable consequences of a hypothetical transient deviation from Quantum Mechanics,” arXiv/quant-ph/1212.5722.Google Scholar

Hnilo, A. (2013). “Time weakens the Bell’s inequalities,” arXiv/quant-ph/1306.1383v2.Google Scholar

Hnilo, A. (2014). “On the meaning of an additional hypothesis in the Bell’s inequalities,” arXiv/quant-ph/1402.6177.Google Scholar

Hnilo, A. (2017a). “Consequences of recent loophole-free experiments on a relaxation of measurement independence,” Physical Review A, 95: 022102.Google Scholar

Hnilo, A. (2017b). “Using measured values in Bell’s inequalities entails at least one hypothesis additional to Local Realism,” Entropy, 19: 80.Google Scholar

Hnilo, A. and Agüero, M. (2015). “Simple experiment to test a hypothetical transient deviation from Quantum Mechanics,” arXiv/abs/1507.01766.Google Scholar

Hnilo, A., Peuriot, A., and Santiago, G. (2002). “Local realistic models tested by the EPRB experiment with random variable analyzers,” Foundations of Physics Letters, 15: 359–371.Google Scholar

Jaynes, E. T. (1980). “Quantum beats,” pp. 37–43 in Barut, A. (ed.), Foundations of Radiation Theory and Quantum Electrodynamics. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Khrennikov, A. (2017). “Buonomano against Bell: Nonergodicity or nonlocality?”, International Journal of Quantum Information, 8: 1740010.Google Scholar

Kovalsky, M. and Hnilo, A. (2004). “Different routes to chaos in the Ti: Sapphire laser,” Physical Review A, 70: 043813.Google Scholar

Kurtsiefer, C., Oberparleiter, M., and Weinfurter, H. (2001). “High efficiency entangled photon pair collection in type II parametric fluorescence,” Physical Review A, 64: 023802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mermin, D. (1990). “Extreme quantum entanglement in a superposition of macroscopically distinct states,” Physical Review, 65: 1838–1840.Google Scholar

Peng, C., Yang, T., Bao, X., Zhang, J., Jin, X., Feng, F., … Pan, J. W. (2005). “Experimental free-space distribution of entangled photon pairs over 13km: towards satellite-based global quantum communication,” Physical Review Letters, 94: 150501.Google Scholar

Polchinski, J. (1991). “Weinberg’s nonlinear quantum mechanics and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox,” Physical Review Letters, 66: 397–400.Google Scholar

Scheidl, T., Ursin, R., Kofler, J., Ramelow, S., Ma, X. -S., Herbst, T., … Zeilinger, A. (2010). “Violation of local realism with freedom of choice,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107: 19708–19713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Scully, O. M. and Zubairy, M. S. (1997). Quantum Optics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Shalm, L. Meyer-Scott, E., Christensen, B., Bierhorst, P., Wayne, M., Stevens, M., … Nam, S. W. (2015). “A strong loophole-free test of local realism,” Physical Review Letters, 115: 250402.Google Scholar

Weihs, G., Jennewein, T., Simon, C., Weinfurter, H., and Zeilinger, A. (1998). “Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions,” Physical Review Letters, 81: 5039–5043.Google Scholar