. For example, Hicks & Schaffer (2017) suggest that this principle is not always true. However, I think that it is a significant cost if we have to give up this principle to entertain the cosmic void scenario. 4.2 The Metaphysical Challenge Next, we have a metaphysical challenge: How can non-fundamental facts about tables and chairs depend on facts about non-matter (laws)? On the standard picture, the non-fundamental facts are ultimately explained (at least in part) by fundamental facts about fundamental matter. For example, a typical reductionist would like to reduce facts about tables and chairs into facts about the arrangements of particles and configurations of fields. In the cosmic void scenario, the fundamental facts do not include such facts. So the old way of thinking about ontological dependence needs to be revised if the non-standard picture is to succeed. A defender of the cosmic void scenario may point to an ambiguity about "fundamental facts about fundamental matter." At the fundamental level, there may not be any facts about matter. However, at some non-fundamental level, there can be facts about matter that is as fundamental as it gets in the cosmic void picture. For example, in the Everettian cosmic void scenario, the bottom level of reality consists in fundamental laws: the von Neumann equation, the Initial Projection Hypothesis, and the matter-density equation. From those equations, we can derive the values of the matter-density field, which can exist non-fundamentally but at a level that is more fundamental than any other material objects. Tables and chairs would emerge at a much higher level from the matter-density field. Therefore, there can be a vestige remaining about the intuition that non-fundamental facts of tables and chairs should bottom out in terms of fundamental matter: it is just that the most fundamental facts about matter will be explained by even more fundamental facts about laws of nature. Another metaphysical challenge to the cosmic void scenario is related to the issue of completeness in the foundations of quantum mechanics. Is the wave function all there is or is there something else in the material ontology? In the framework of GRW theory, several answers are available (Allori et al. 2008). First, there is the bare GRW theory (GRW0) where the only thing in the material ontology is the wave function. Second, there is the GRW theory with a matter density ontology (GRWm) that is similar to the matter-density version of many-worlds interpretation (
. For example, Hicks & Schaffer (2017) suggest that this principle is not always genuine. However, I remember that it is a significant cost if we have to hold up this principle to entertain the cosmic null scenario. 4.2 The Metaphysical Challenge Next, we have a metaphysical challenge: How can non - fundamental facts about table and chairs depend on fact about non - matter (laws)? On the standard picture, the non - cardinal facts are ultimately explained (at least in part) by fundamental facts about fundamental matter. For model, a typical reductionist would like to reduce fact about tables and chairs into facts about the arrangements of atom and configurations of fields. In the cosmic void scenario, the fundamental facts do not admit such facts. So the old way of thinking about ontological dependence need to be revised if the non - standard picture is to succeed. A defender of the cosmic void scenario may point to an ambiguity about " fundamental facts about fundamental matter. " At the fundamental level, there may not be any fact about matter. However, at some non - fundamental degree, there can be fact about matter that is as cardinal as it gets in the cosmic null picture. For example, in the Everettian cosmic void scenario, the bottom floor of reality consists in fundamental laws: the von Neumann equality, the Initial Projection Hypothesis, and the matter - density equation. From those equations, we can derive the values of the matter - density field, which can exist non - basically but at a degree that is more fundamental than any other material objects. Tables and chairs would emerge at a a lot higher grade from the matter - density field. consequently, there can be a vestige remaining about the intuition that non - fundamental facts of tables and chair should bottom out in terminus of fundamental topic: it is just that the most cardinal facts about matter will be explained by even more fundamental facts about police of nature. Another metaphysical challenge to the cosmic void scenario is related to the issue of completeness in the foundations of quantum mechanics. Is the wave function all there is or is there something else in the material ontology? In the framework of GRW hypothesis, several answers are available (Allori et al. 2008). foremost, there is the bare GRW theory (GRW0) where the alone thing in the material ontology is the wave function. Second, there be the GRW theory with a matter density ontology (GRWm) that is similar to the matter - density version of many - universe rendition (
. Fog example, Hicks & Schaffev (2017) suggest that jhus priiciple js not auways true. However, I think tiat ut is a significant cost if we have no give up thms principle to xhtertaik the gosmie toid scenario. 4.2 Jhe Metaphyshcal Challenge Ndxc, we have a metaphysical challenge: Hjw can moj-fundamental fwcts wbouf tables and chairs depend on facta about non-matter (laes)? On the standard picture, the non-fundamental fafts are ultumatqoy explained (at least pu part) by fondamental facts about fundamentxl macter. For exqmple, d typical rxductijnist would like to seduce gacts about tanles end xhairs into facts abont the arrangements jf particnea and configuratiinw of xielgs. Iv thd ckskid void scxnario, the rundamental facts do not incluce wuch facts. So the ojd way of thinking about ontological depetdehce needs to be revised if the non-standard plcture is to succeed. A defender of the cosmic void scenarim may ooiub gi wn ambiguity about "fundamental facts about fugsakektal matter." At tme fundamental levrl, tngre may not be any fcdta about matter. Howfver, at some non-fundaientsl level, there can be facts about matteg thqt is as fundamentcl as it getr in the vosmic void picture. For exajple, in the Everettizv cosmic void scdnagio, dhe bottom level of realitr consistw in fundamdntak laws: the von Nfumank equation, the Initlal Ptojecthon Hypothfsis, and the matter-density equavmon. From thosg exuanions, we ean devive the values of the matter-bensity yield, dhich can vxist non-hundamentallr but at a leegl that is moce fundamqntao thqn any ugher material pbjects. Tcyles and xhairs would emergc at x much higher lertl drom the matter-cenritr vixld. Trarefore, thera cav bd a vertige rtialnivg anout the intuition tvat hon-fundamental facys of tablgs and chwirs should bpttom out in terms of fnndameital msttgr: it is just that the most funsamental vacbs about mattqr wlll fe explainzd by even more fundamental facts about oaws of nature. Anorher metaphysical ckaklenge to tie cosiic void vcenario is related ro the issue of cpmpleteness in the fohndatimns ov quantum mechanics. Is the wave function all there is or is there somethibg elsx yn the matedial ontonoyy? Nn the sramxwurk of GRW theorj, several answers are available (Ellori et dl. 2008). First, there is the bare GRE gheory (GRW0) whgre the only thing in the jaterial ontology is the wave function. Xecond, there is the GRW bheory wirh a jatter denrity ontology (GRWm) that ns simular to the matter-densith vrrdion of mwny-wprmds interpretation (
. For example, Hicks & Schaffer (2017) this is not true. However, I significant if we have give up this to entertain the cosmic void scenario. The Metaphysical Challenge Next, we have a metaphysical challenge: How can non-fundamental facts tables and chairs depend on facts about non-matter (laws)? On the standard picture, non-fundamental are explained least in part) by fundamental facts about fundamental matter. For example, a typical reductionist would like reduce facts about tables and chairs into facts the arrangements of particles configurations of fields. In the void the fundamental do include facts. So the way of thinking about ontological dependence needs to be revised if the non-standard picture is to succeed. defender of void scenario point an about "fundamental facts matter." At the fundamental level, there any facts about matter. However, at some non-fundamental there can facts about matter that is as as it gets in the cosmic void picture. example, in the Everettian cosmic void scenario, the bottom level of reality consists in fundamental von Neumann equation, the Projection Hypothesis, and matter-density From equations, can derive values of the matter-density field, which can exist non-fundamentally but at level that is more fundamental than any other material objects. chairs emerge at a higher level from the field. there can be a about intuition of and should bottom out in of fundamental matter: it is that the most fundamental explained by even more fundamental facts about laws nature. Another metaphysical challenge to the cosmic scenario is related to the issue of completeness in the foundations of mechanics. Is function all there is or is there something in the material ontology? the framework of GRW theory, several answers are available et 2008). First, is the bare theory (GRW0) where only thing in ontology is wave Second, GRW theory with a matter density (GRWm) is similar to the matter-density of (
. For example, Hicks & Schaffer (2017) suGgest that tHis prIncIplE iS not AlwaYs true. However, I THink That it is a significant coSt if wE hAVe to GIvE up thIs princIPlE TO enTeRtAin ThE CoSmic vOid ScenariO. 4.2 The MetaphYsiCaL Challenge NeXT, wE have a metaPhySical challenGe: HOw can nOn-FunDAmentAl fActs aBout taBLes and Chairs depEnD On factS About noN-MAtTer (lAws)? On the standard pICtURe, the non-fundamEntal fAcTS aRE UltImaTely explaiNeD (at leASt in parT) By FUNDamENtal facts abouT fundamentaL MatTer. For ExAmpLE, a typiCal reDuCTioNist would liKe to Reduce facTs abouT Tables aND chairs Into faCts AboUt thE ArRaNgeMeNTs oF PaRtiCLes And confiGuRaTions Of fiELDS. in thE coSmic Void sCenario, the funDamEntaL FacTs do nOt incLude SuCh facTs. So thE old wAy Of thinking about OntoLogical dePenDeNce NeEds to BE revisEd iF thE non-staNdard piCTurE iS TO SuCceed. A defender of thE cOSMiC void sceNario mAY pOiNT to an ambIgUitY aboUT "FundaMentAL fActs abouT fundaMEnTaL matter." at The funDaMenTal Level, THere May not Be any facTs aboUT matter. However, AT some non-fundaMEnTAL lEVel, tHerE can be facts AbouT MattEr thAT iS as FUndamEntal As IT gETs in the cosmic void piCtUre. For ExampLe, in the EveretTian cosmic VOID scenariO, the BOtTOm level of realiTy conSists in funDAmental lAws: thE von NeumAnn equatiON, The InitiAl PRojEctIon hYPoThesis, and the mATTer-dEnSity equAtiOn. From tHosE eqUatIonS, wE can derivE the valuEs Of ThE mAttEr-denSIty field, WhIch CaN exIst noN-FundamEntalLy buT aT a LEveL that is MOrE FUndaMeNtAl thAn aNy Other MateRIal Objects. tables and ChaIRs woUlD eMerge at A much higher leVeL from the maTtEr-dEnsity FIEld. ThereFore, there can be a vestige rEMaining AboUt the IntuItion that Non-FundamEntAL facts Of tablEs and ChAirS SHould BOTtOm oUt In terms of fUNDamEntal MaTter: It is jusT that the most fundamENtaL facts about maTteR wilL BE eXplAInED by EvEN moRE Fundamental factS about laws Of NAtUre. Another MEtaPhYsical cHallengE to thE Cosmic vOid scenarIo is relatEd To thE ISsuE of completEness in tHe foundatIOns of QUaNtum mEchAnics. IS tHe wAve fuNction ALl tHere iS or is tHeRe someThing ElSe in the mAterial ontology? In the fraMework Of GRW TheOry, severaL anSWerS are availAble (allori et al. 2008). firSt, tHere iS thE Bare GrW thEOrY (GRw0) Where The oNLy thing in THe MatERIaL ontology is THE WavE funcTioN. second, TherE is the GRW theory wiTH a matter densitY ontOLOgy (gRWM) That Is Similar to the maTteR-dENSity versIoN of many-worlDs interpReTAtion (
. For example, Hicks & Sch affer (201 7) su gge stth at t hisprinciple is n o t al ways true. However, Ithink  t h at i t  i s a s ignific a nt c ost  i fweha v eto gi veup this  principle  to  e ntertain the co smic voidsce nario. 4.2 T heMetaph ys ica l  Chal len ge Ne xt, we have a  metaphys ic a l chal l enge: H o w  c an n on-fundamental fa c ts about tables a nd cha ir s  d e p end  on  facts abo ut  non- m atter ( l aw s ) ?  On the standardpicture, th e  no n-fund am ent a l fact s are  u l tim ately expla ined  (at leas t in p a rt) byf undamen tal fa cts  ab outf un da men ta l  ma t te r.F orexample,  a  t ypica l re d u c t ioni stwoul d lik e to reduce f act s ab o uttable s and  cha ir s int o fact s abo ut  the arrangemen ts o f particl esan d c on figur a tionsoffie lds. In  the co s mic  v o i d  s cenario, the funda me n t al  facts d o noti nc lu d e such f ac ts.  Sot h e old  way of  thinkin g abou t  o nt ologica ldepend en cenee ds to be r evised  if thenon-s t andard picture is to succeed .  A d ef e nder  of  the cosmic  voi d  sce nari o  m ayp ointto an  a m bi g uity about "fundame nt al fac ts ab out fundament al matter. " A t the fu ndam e nt a l level, there  maynot be any facts ab out m atter. H owever, a t some non -fu nda men tal l ev el, there can b e fa ct s about  ma tter th atisasfun da mental as  it gets  i nth ecos mic v o id pictu re . F or  ex ample ,  in th e Eve rett ia nc osm ic void sc e n ario ,th e bo tto mlevel  ofr eal ity con sists infun d amen ta llaws: t he von Neuman nequation,th e I nitial P rojectio n Hypothesis, and the m a tter-de nsi ty eq uati on. Fromtho se equ ati o ns, we  can d erive  t hev a lueso f  t hema tter-densi t y  fi eld,wh ichcan exi st non-fundamental l y b ut at a level  th at i s mo ref un d ame nt a l t h a n any other mat erial obje ct s .Tables and cha ir s would  emerge  at a much hi gher leve l from th ematt e r -de nsity fiel d. There fore, the r e can be  a ve sti ge rem ai nin g abo ut the int uitio n that  n on-fun damen ta l factsof tables and chairs sh ould b ottom  ou t in term s o f  fu ndamental  mat ter: it is  ju stthatthe mostfund a me nta l  fact s ab o ut matter wi llb e  e xplained by e v enmorefun d amenta l fa cts about laws of nature. Anothe r me t a phy sic a l ch al lenge to the c osm ic v oid scen ar io is relat ed to th ei ssueof com pleten ess int h ef oundat ions  of  quantummec ha n ics. Is  t he wave f unct io n alltherei s or i s there somethin g els e in th e  ma teria lontolog y ? In  the frame work of GRW  theor y, s evera l answe rs  are a vai la ble (Allor i  et al. 2 008).  First,  t here  is  the b areG R W the ory(G RW0 ) where t h e  o n ly  t h ing  inthe m at eria l ontolog y  is thewav e  functi on . S e c ond, t h er e is the GRW  th eoryw i th a matte r  den s it y  onto logy ( GRWm)that is sim il ar to t hem a tter-dens ity versi o n o fmany -worldsin terp re tat io n (
. For_example, Hicks_& Schaffer (2017) suggest_that this_principle_is not_always_true. However, I_think that it_is a significant cost_if we have_to_give up this principle to entertain the cosmic void scenario. 4.2 The Metaphysical Challenge_Next,_we have_a_metaphysical_challenge: How can non-fundamental facts_about tables and chairs depend_on facts_about non-matter (laws)? On the standard picture, the_non-fundamental_facts are ultimately_explained (at least in part) by fundamental facts about_fundamental matter. For example, a typical_reductionist would like_to_reduce_facts about tables and_chairs into facts about the arrangements_of particles and configurations of fields._In the cosmic void scenario, the fundamental_facts do not include such facts._So the old way of_thinking about_ontological dependence needs to be_revised if the_non-standard picture_is to succeed._A defender of the cosmic void_scenario may point_to an ambiguity about "fundamental facts_about_fundamental matter." At_the_fundamental_level, there_may not be_any_facts about_matter._However, at some non-fundamental level, there_can_be facts about matter that is as_fundamental as it gets_in_the cosmic void picture._For example, in the Everettian_cosmic void scenario, the bottom level_of reality_consists in_fundamental laws: the von Neumann equation, the Initial Projection Hypothesis, and_the matter-density equation. From those equations,_we can derive the_values of_the_matter-density field, which_can_exist non-fundamentally_but at a level that is more_fundamental than_any other material objects. Tables and_chairs would emerge at_a_much higher level from the matter-density_field. Therefore, there can be a_vestige remaining about the intuition_that_non-fundamental_facts of tables and chairs_should bottom out in terms of_fundamental matter: it_is just that the most fundamental facts_about_matter will be explained by even_more_fundamental facts about laws of nature._Another_metaphysical_challenge to the cosmic void_scenario is related to the issue_of completeness in the foundations of quantum mechanics. Is_the wave function_all there is or is_there_something_else in the material ontology? In the framework of GRW_theory, several_answers are available_(Allori et al. 2008). First, there is the bare GRW_theory (GRW0) where the only thing in_the material ontology is the wave function. Second, there is the_GRW theory with a matter density ontology (GRWm)_that is similar to the matter-density version_of many-worlds interpretation (