Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1703.05998

Does Newtonian space provide identity to quantum systems?

Décio Krause

Published Mar 17, 2017• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Physics is not just mathematics. This seems trivial, but poses difficult and interesting questions. In this paper we analyse a particular discrepancy between non-relativistic quantum mechanics (QM) and `classical' (Newtonian) space and time (NST). We also suggest, but not discuss, the case of the relativistic QM. In this work, we are more concerned with the notion of space and its mathematical representation. The mathematics entails that any two spatially separated objects are necessarily \ita{different}, which implies that they are \ita{discernible} (in classical logic, identity is defined by means of indiscernibility) --- we say that the space is $T_2$, or "Hausdorff". But when enters QM, sometimes the systems need to be taken as \ita{completely indistinguishable}, so that there is no way to tell which system is which, and this holds even in the case of fermions. But in the NST setting, it seems that we can always give an \ita{identity} to them by means of their individuation, which seems to be contra the physical situation, where individuation (isolation) does not entail identity (as we argue in this paper). Here we discuss this topic by considering a case study (that of two potentially infinite wells) and conclude that, taking into account the quantum case, that is, when physics enter the discussion, even NST cannot be used to say that the systems do have identity. This case study seems to be relevant for a more detailed discussion on the interplay between physical theories (such as quantum theory) and their underlying mathematics (and logic), in a simple way apparently never realized before.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1703.05998

Related papers

Do `classical' space and time provide identity to quantum particles?

Décio Krause

Non-relativistic quantum mechanics is grounded on ‘classical’ (Newtonian) space and time (NST). The mathematical description of these concepts entails that any two spatially separated objects are necessarily different, which implies that they are discernible (in classical logic, identity is defined by means of indiscernibility) — we say that the space is T2, or "Hausdorff". But quantum systems, in the most interesting cases, some- times need to be taken as indiscernible, so that there is no way to tell which system is which, and this holds even in the case of fermions. But in the NST setting, it seems that we can always give an identity to them, which seems to be contra the physical situation. In this paper we discuss this topic for a case study (that of two potentially infinite wells) and con- clude that, taking into account the quantum case, that is, when physics enter the discussion, even NST cannot be used to say that the systems do have identity. This case study seems to be relevant for a more detailed discussion on the interplay between physical theories (such as quantum theory) and their underlying mathematics (and logic), in a way never considered before.

•Mar 16, 2017•1 citation

On identity, indiscernibility and (non-)individuality in the quantum domain

Décio Krause

The topics of identity, individuality and indiscernibility had already entered the domain of the philosophy of physics, mainly in what respects the philosophy of quantum theories. In this paper, I present the main ideas of an underlying metaphysics that considers the basic entities of quantum physics as non-individuals, that is, as entities to which the standard theory of identity of classical logic and standard mathematics (set theory) does not apply. Two things must be emphasized: the first is that we pursue Erwin Schrödinger’s ideas that the notion of identity (or sameness ) does not apply to quantum things; the second is to follow Heinz Post’s claim that the non-individuality of quantum entities ‘must be introduced right at the start’ and not by taking individuals and making them pretend to be non-individuals ‘by hand’, say by confining them to non-rigid structures. Thus, this paper should be regarded as an attempt to justify the metaphysics of non-individuals and the logical systems that cope with them, although these systems are here only referred to. We also answer some criticisms that have been directed to such a view. The paper is directed to an audience of both physicists interested in foundations and philosophers of physics. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Identity, individuality and indistinguishability in physics and mathematics’.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Jul 30, 2023•7 citations

The problem of identity and a justification for a non-reflexive quantum mechanics

Décio Krause

In this article we try to justify a way of looking for an alternative approach to quantum mechanics based on a non-classical logic. The main motivation is both to accommodate a metaphysical view according to which quantum objects are non-individuals and to introduce, so to say, these objects within the formalism, for as we know, the usual formalism treats of states of quantum systems and not (directly) of quantum systems properly speaking. We consider two specific questions related to quantum theory, namely, entanglement and the indiscernibility of quanta. Our way of looking to these concepts motivate us to construct a metaphysical view according to which quantum objects do not present identity criterion (they are ‘non-individuals’), and then we try to construct a quantum theory based on such a view, which is grounded on a non-classical logic, termed non-reflexive. From the formal point of view, the main motivation comes from the fact that in using classical logic and classical set theory (such as ZFC), we are necessarily committed to individuals, and non-individuals can be considered only by assuming ‘strong’ symmetry principles, which mask the basic idea involving non-individuality. In the core of the article, due to questions of space, only the main philosophical arguments are presented, but in two appendixes we outline, firstly, quasi-set theory, the non-reflexive mathematical framework that sustain our view, and a bottom-top construction of a quantum mechanics based on quasi-set theory.

Logic Journal of IGPL•Jul 31, 2013•3 citations

Identity, individuality and indistinguishability in physics and mathematics

Gabriel Catren

In this brief survey, we discuss some of the scientific and philosophical problems and debates that underlie the notions of identity , individuality and indistinguishability in physics and mathematics. We critically analyse the different positions for or against the existence of indistinguishable objects in different scientific theories, notably quantum mechanics and gauge theories in physics and homotopy type theory in mathematics. We argue that the different forms of indistinguishability that occur in many areas of physics and mathematics—far from being a problem to be eradicated—exhibit a rich formal structure that plays a key role in the corresponding theories that needs to be properly understood. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Identity, individuality and indistinguishability in physics and mathematics’.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Jul 30, 2023•7 citations

Presenting Nonreflexive Quantum Mechanics: Formalism and Metaphysics

Décio Krause, Jonas R. Becker Arenhart

Nonreflexive quantum mechanics is a formulation of quantum theory based on a non-classical logic termed \ita{nonreflexive logic} (a.k.a. `non-reflexive'). In these logics, the standard notion of identity, as encapsulated in classical logic and set theories, does not hold in full. The basic aim of this kind of approach to quantum mechanics is to take seriously the claim made by some authors according to whom quantum particles are \ita{non-individuals} in some sense, and also to take into account the fact that they may be absolutely indistinguishable (or indiscernible). The nonreflexive formulation of quantum theory assumes these features of the objects already at the level of the underlying logic, so that no use is required of symmetrization postulates or other mathematical devices that serve to pretend that the objects are indiscernible (when they are not: all objects that obey classical logic are \ita{individuals} in a sense). Here, we present the ideas of the development of nonreflexive quantum mechanics and discuss some philosophical (mainly metaphysical) motivations and consequences of it.

arXiv:1510.07297•Jan 1, 2015•4 citations

Identity in Physics

Steven French, Décio Krause

Abstract Drawing on philosophical accounts of identity and individuality, as well as the histories of both classical and quantum physics, this book explores two alternative metaphysical approaches to quantum particles. It asks if quantum particles can be regarded as individuals, just like books, tables, and people. Taking the first approach, the book argues that if quantum particles are regarded as individuals, then Leibniz’s famous Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles is in fact violated. Recent discussions of this conclusion are analysed in detail and the costs involved in saving the Principle are carefully considered. For the second approach, the book considers recent work in non-standard logic and set theory to indicate how we can make sense of the idea that objects can be non-individuals. The concluding chapter suggests how these results might then be extended to quantum field theory.

•Jun 22, 2006•338 citations
Physics is not just mathematics. This seems trivial, but poses difficult and interesting questions. In this paper we analyse a particular discrepancy between non-relativistic quantum mechanics (QM) and `classical' (Newtonian) space and time (NST). We also suggest, but not discuss, the case of the relativistic QM. In this work, we are more concerned with the notion of space and its mathematical representation. The mathematics entails that any two spatially separated objects are necessarily \ita{different}, which implies that they are \ita{discernible} (in classical logic, identity is defined by means of indiscernibility) --- we say that the space is T2T_2T2​, or "Hausdorff". But when enters QM, sometimes the systems need to be taken as \ita{completely indistinguishable}, so that there is no way to tell which system is which, and this holds even in the case of fermions. But in the NST setting, it seems that we can always give an \ita{identity} to them by means of their individuation, which seems to be contra the physical situation, where individuation (isolation) does not entail identity (as we argue in this paper). Here we discuss this topic by considering a case study (that of two potentially infinite wells) and conclude that, taking into account the quantum case, that is, when physics enter the discussion, even NST cannot be used to say that the systems do have identity. This case study seems to be relevant for a more detailed discussion on the interplay between physical theories (such as quantum theory) and their underlying mathematics (and logic), in a simple way apparently never realized before.
Non-relativistic quantum mechanics is grounded on ‘classical’ (Newtonian) space and time (NST). The mathematical description of these concepts entails that any two spatially separated objects are necessarily different, which implies that they are discernible (in classical logic, identity is defined by means of indiscernibility) — we say that the space is T2, or "Hausdorff". But quantum systems, in the most interesting cases, some- times need to be taken as indiscernible, so that there is no way to tell which system is which, and this holds even in the case of fermions. But in the NST setting, it seems that we can always give an identity to them, which seems to be contra the physical situation. In this paper we discuss this topic for a case study (that of two potentially infinite wells) and con- clude that, taking into account the quantum case, that is, when physics enter the discussion, even NST cannot be used to say that the systems do have identity. This case study seems to be relevant for a more detailed discussion on the interplay between physical theories (such as quantum theory) and their underlying mathematics (and logic), in a way never considered before.
The topics of identity, individuality and indiscernibility had already entered the domain of the philosophy of physics, mainly in what respects the philosophy of quantum theories. In this paper, I present the main ideas of an underlying metaphysics that considers the basic entities of quantum physics as non-individuals, that is, as entities to which the standard theory of identity of classical logic and standard mathematics (set theory) does not apply. Two things must be emphasized: the first is that we pursue Erwin Schrödinger’s ideas that the notion of identity (or sameness ) does not apply to quantum things; the second is to follow Heinz Post’s claim that the non-individuality of quantum entities ‘must be introduced right at the start’ and not by taking individuals and making them pretend to be non-individuals ‘by hand’, say by confining them to non-rigid structures. Thus, this paper should be regarded as an attempt to justify the metaphysics of non-individuals and the logical systems that cope with them, although these systems are here only referred to. We also answer some criticisms that have been directed to such a view. The paper is directed to an audience of both physicists interested in foundations and philosophers of physics. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Identity, individuality and indistinguishability in physics and mathematics’.
In this article we try to justify a way of looking for an alternative approach to quantum mechanics based on a non-classical logic. The main motivation is both to accommodate a metaphysical view according to which quantum objects are non-individuals and to introduce, so to say, these objects within the formalism, for as we know, the usual formalism treats of states of quantum systems and not (directly) of quantum systems properly speaking. We consider two specific questions related to quantum theory, namely, entanglement and the indiscernibility of quanta. Our way of looking to these concepts motivate us to construct a metaphysical view according to which quantum objects do not present identity criterion (they are ‘non-individuals’), and then we try to construct a quantum theory based on such a view, which is grounded on a non-classical logic, termed non-reflexive. From the formal point of view, the main motivation comes from the fact that in using classical logic and classical set theory (such as ZFC), we are necessarily committed to individuals, and non-individuals can be considered only by assuming ‘strong’ symmetry principles, which mask the basic idea involving non-individuality. In the core of the article, due to questions of space, only the main philosophical arguments are presented, but in two appendixes we outline, firstly, quasi-set theory, the non-reflexive mathematical framework that sustain our view, and a bottom-top construction of a quantum mechanics based on quasi-set theory.
In this brief survey, we discuss some of the scientific and philosophical problems and debates that underlie the notions of identity , individuality and indistinguishability in physics and mathematics. We critically analyse the different positions for or against the existence of indistinguishable objects in different scientific theories, notably quantum mechanics and gauge theories in physics and homotopy type theory in mathematics. We argue that the different forms of indistinguishability that occur in many areas of physics and mathematics—far from being a problem to be eradicated—exhibit a rich formal structure that plays a key role in the corresponding theories that needs to be properly understood. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Identity, individuality and indistinguishability in physics and mathematics’.
Nonreflexive quantum mechanics is a formulation of quantum theory based on a non-classical logic termed \ita{nonreflexive logic} (a.k.a. `non-reflexive'). In these logics, the standard notion of identity, as encapsulated in classical logic and set theories, does not hold in full. The basic aim of this kind of approach to quantum mechanics is to take seriously the claim made by some authors according to whom quantum particles are \ita{non-individuals} in some sense, and also to take into account the fact that they may be absolutely indistinguishable (or indiscernible). The nonreflexive formulation of quantum theory assumes these features of the objects already at the level of the underlying logic, so that no use is required of symmetrization postulates or other mathematical devices that serve to pretend that the objects are indiscernible (when they are not: all objects that obey classical logic are \ita{individuals} in a sense). Here, we present the ideas of the development of nonreflexive quantum mechanics and discuss some philosophical (mainly metaphysical) motivations and consequences of it.
Abstract Drawing on philosophical accounts of identity and individuality, as well as the histories of both classical and quantum physics, this book explores two alternative metaphysical approaches to quantum particles. It asks if quantum particles can be regarded as individuals, just like books, tables, and people. Taking the first approach, the book argues that if quantum particles are regarded as individuals, then Leibniz’s famous Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles is in fact violated. Recent discussions of this conclusion are analysed in detail and the costs involved in saving the Principle are carefully considered. For the second approach, the book considers recent work in non-standard logic and set theory to indicate how we can make sense of the idea that objects can be non-individuals. The concluding chapter suggests how these results might then be extended to quantum field theory.