Laws Are Not Descriptions

References

• Albert, D. 1996. “Elementary Quantum Metaphysics.” In Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal, edited by J. Cushing, A. Fine, and S. Goldstein, 277–284. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Albert, D., and A. Ney, eds. 2013. The Wave Function: Essays on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beebee, H. 2000. “The Non-governing Conception of Laws of Nature.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61: 571–594. doi: 10.2307/2653613
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. W. 1994. Laws of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. W. 2008. “Nailed to Hume’s Cross?” In Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics, edited by J. Hawthorne, T. Sider, and D. W. Zimmerman, 67–81. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., and C. Callender. 2009. “A Better Best System Account of Lawhood.” Philosophical Studies 145: 1–34. doi: 10.1007/s11098-009-9389-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorato, M., and F. Laudisa. 2014. “Realism and Instrumentalism about the Wave Function: How Should We Choose?” In Protective Measurement and Quantum Reality: Towards a New Understanding of Quantum Mechanics, edited by S. Gao, 119–134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dürr, D., S. Goldstein, and N. Zanghì. 1992. “Quantum Equilibrium and the Origin of Absolute Uncertainty.” Journal of Statistical Physics 67: 843–907. doi: 10.1007/BF01049004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dürr, D., S. Goldstein, and N. Zanghì. 2013. Quantum Physics without Quantum Philosophy. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Earman, J., and J. T. Roberts. 2005a. “Contact with the Nomic: A Challenge for Deniers of Humean Supervenience about Laws of Nature. Part I: Humean Supervenience.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71: 1–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2005.tb00428.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Earman, J., and J. T. Roberts. 2005b. “Contact with the Nomic: A Challenge for Deniers of Humean Supervenience about Laws of Nature. Part II: The Epistemological Argument for Humean Supervenience.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71: 253–286. doi: 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2005.tb00449.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esfeld, M., D. Lazarovici, M. Hubert, and D. Dürr. 2014. “The Ontology of Bohmian Mechanics.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65: 773–796. doi: 10.1093/bjps/axt019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fine, A. 1986. The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism and the Quantum Theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frank, P. 1949. “Einstein’s Philosophy of Science.” Reviews of Modern Physics 21: 349–355. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.21.349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giere, R. N. 1999. Science Without Laws. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, S., and N. Zanghì. 2013. “Reality and the Role of the Wave Function in Quantum Theory.” In The Wave Function: Essays on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics, edited by D. Albert and A. Ney, 91–109. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, N. 2012. “ Humean Reductionism about Laws of Nature.” Unpublished manuscript. http://philpapers.org/archive/HALHRA.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, N. 2015. “Humean Reductionism about Laws of Nature.” In A Companion to David Lewis, edited by B. Loewer and J. Schaffer, 262–277. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Hildebrand, T. 2013. “Can Primitive Laws Explain?” Philosophers’ Imprint 13: 1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoefer, C., and A. Solé, eds. 2015. “Space-time and the Wave Function.” Special Issue. Synthese 192, no. 10.
   Google Scholar
• Lange, M. 2000. Natural Laws in Scientific Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lange, M. 2009. Laws and Lawmakers. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laudisa, F. 2012. “The Uninvited Guest: ‘Local Realism’ and the Bell Theorem.” In EPSA Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009, edited by H. W. de Regt, S. Hartmann, and S. Okasha, 137–150. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, D. K. 1973. Counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Loewer, B. 1997. “Humean Supervenience.” Philosophical Topics 24: 101–126. doi: 10.5840/philtopics199624112
   Google Scholar
• Maudlin, T. 2007. The Metaphysics Within Physics. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Menzies, P. 1993. “Laws, Modality, and Humean Supervenience.” In Ontology, Causality and Mind: Essays in Honour of D. M. Armstrong, edited by J. Bacon, K. Campbell, and L. Reinhardt, 195–224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Monton, B. 2002. “Wave Function Ontology.” Synthese 130: 256–277. doi: 10.1023/A:1014493527177
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mumford, S. 2004. Laws in Nature. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Nature. 1923. “Einstein and the Philosophies of Kant and Mach.” Nature 112: 253.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, J. T. 2008. The Law-governed Universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Solé, A. 2013. “Bohmian Mechanics without Wave Function Ontology.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 44: 365–378. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsb.2013.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaidman, L. 2014. “Quantum Theory and Determinism.” Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations 1: 5–38. doi: 10.1007/s40509-014-0008-4
   Google Scholar
• van Fraassen, B. C. 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar