In this article, we discuss some questions about the nature of elementary particles treated by quantum mechanics, in particular related to the concepts of identity and individuality of these particles. We started briefly exposing the philosophical and formal concepts of the identity and individuality, and then show how these notions are problematic when applied to elementary particles such as electrons, protons and neutrons. In particular, we emphasize that both philosophy, logic and set theory (and thus the mathematics) admit the usual assumption that things have a ‘type’ of identity and individuality (i.e., are individuals), in the sense that objects which have all the same properties are the same object (are equal). Nevertheless, we show that in the quantum universe is possible to find objects that share all their properties, but are not just one, constituting in something like “nonindividuals” (thesis defended by many physicists and philosophers of science). In sequence, we show how classical mathematics — which, as we said, assumes an individuality to your entities — handle this situation, in particular admitting assumptions external to the physical theories. To avoid this procedure, and look for a formalism more ‘natural’ and appropriate to work with these quantum characteristics, we suggest the use of a non-classical set theory called the quasi-set theory, based on a non-reflective logics, which admits objects devoid of identity and individuality ab initio. Finally, we show another application of this theory: the search to a quasi-set mathematical structure that describes the ‘behaviour’ of non-relativistic quantum theory, and discuss some advantages of this ‘quasi-structure’ to a classical one.
In this article, we discuss some questions about the nature of elementary particles treated by quantum mechanics, in particular related to the concepts of identity and individuality of these particles. We started briefly exposing the philosophical and formal concepts of the identity and individuality, and then show how these notions are problematic when applied to elementary particles such as electrons, protons and neutrons. In particular, we emphasize that both philosophy, logic and set theory (and thus the mathematics) admit the usual assumption that things have a ‘type’ of identity and individuality (i.e., are individuals), in the sense that objects which have all the same properties are the same object (are equal). Nevertheless, we show that in the quantum universe is possible to find objects that share all their properties, but are not just one, constituting in something like “nonindividuals” (thesis defended by many physicists and philosophers of science). In sequence, we show how classical mathematics — which, as we said, assumes an individuality to your entities — handle this situation, in particular admitting assumptions external to the physical theories. To avoid this procedure, and look for a formalism more ‘natural’ and appropriate to work with these quantum characteristics, we suggest the use of a non-classical set theory called the quasi-set theory, based on a non-reflective logics, which admits objects devoid of identity and individuality ab initio. Finally, we show another application of this theory: the search to a quasi-set mathematical structure that describes the ‘behaviour’ of non-relativistic quantum theory, and discuss some advantages of this ‘quasi-structure’ to a classical one.
The non-relativistic quantum mechanics offers us conditions to consider at least two possible metaphysical packages, but incompatible between themselves: metaphysics of individuals, and metaphysics of non-individuals. In addition, the standard formalism is compatible with both the ontologies, without the theory being decided for either of them. From this particular kind of situation, the thesis of the underdetermination of metaphysics by physics can be established. Actually, it can be found, among scientists and philosophers, defenders of one, or another ontology, as well as those who do not address the issue, given that theory on its own does not decide. This means that if we make a choice for one of these packages, it will be happing in a metaphysical field, increasing a lot the philosophical discussions about individuality of quantic objects in quantum physics. From a naturalized methodological view, we present the issues from those defend the individuality of quantic objects, and from those, include us, defend non-individuality, focusing two approaches: (i) the ontological one, in which the fail of IIP as individuation principle is discussed; and, (ii) the logical one, in which non-reflexive logics, as well as a quasi-set theory became more suitable for representing the non-individuals. In this paper we stand for the choice of non-individuals ontology becomes more plausible, and should be taken in account seriously, opening up possibilities for ontological pluralism.
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 the non-reflexive formulation of quantum physics, attention is given to a metaphysical view of quantum objects (q-objects) as non-individuals, characterised as entities to which the standard notion of identity lacks sense. The reference to the nature of q-objects is usually omitted in other interpretations and the most we can find is some vague reference to “to each [quantum] system we associate a Hilbert space”, and nothing more is said about them; we need to infer from the theory their characteristics, and it gives us several alternatives. One of them, to be justified here in broad aspects, is the non-individual view. It is important to enlighten that we are not trying to just find a way to deal with quantum entities but to defend a possible ontology of non-individuals, which can be applied also to ‘particles’ arising from quantum fields. Our account is based on two assumptions: (i) the ‘classical theory of identity’ does not apply to q-objects, and (ii) their non-individuality must be attributed from the start, that is, as a primitive notion and not ‘made a posteriori’ say by assuming symmetry principles. The underlying logic is called non-reflexive because the reflexive law of identity ∀x(x=x) is supposed not to hold for q-objects. Since all the details demand a lot of space, here we only sketch and justify our view. The references provide a more detailed account.
The notion of an individual and the related issues on individuation are topics that appear in the philosophical discussion ever since the antiquity. The idea of an individual thing is intuitively clear: an individual is something of a specific kind that is a unity, having its own identity, and being so that it is possible at least in principle to discern it from any other individual, even of similar species. But when we try to leave the intuitive realm and push this idea to a logical analysis, we find a cluster of problems that are difficult to overcome within standard logico-mathematical contexts. In this work, we shall be concerned with some aspects of this intuitive concept of an individual and on some related facts about individuation taken from recent discussions that arose ever since the inception of quantum theory, pushing the discussion to a “logical” view, which in our opinion is still lacking in the usual debates on such issues. In the final part of the paper, we propose a metaphysics where the notion of identity is substituted, for some objects, by a weaker notion of indiscernibility, and we try to justify such a move. In most of the uses of the expression “quantum theory”, we shall not make explicit the distinction between the non-relativistic and the relativistic approaches, although they of course are quite different, for we think that the problems as we shall present them appear in both versions. But, as the text goes, the context will distinguish between them and these questions will become clear to the reader.
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’.
According to classical physics, particles are basic constituents of the physical world. Quantum theory is much less friendly to particles; in particular, relativistic quantum field theory (RQFT) creates serious obstacles for the idea that particles are fundamental. Apparently, when moving from the domain of RQFT to that of classical mechanics (CM), particles have to emerge at some stage. It is standard to assume that this emergence has been completed at the level of quantum mechanics, halfway between RQFT and CM, even though particles of the same kind in many-particle quantum mechanics have the curious feature of being ‘entities without identity’. Against this ‘Received View’ about the nature of quantum particles we outline and defend an Alternative View (AV), in which the emergent character of particles is emphasized. According to this AV, the step to a particle theory has not yet been made in quantum mechanics: conditions have still to be satisfied in order to make the particle concept applicable. If these conditions are met, the quantum particles that emerge are distinguishable individuals possessing physically defined identities, in stark contrast to what the Received View asserts. We will compare and contrast the two Views, both from a physical and a logical/conceptual point of view. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Identity, individuality and indistinguishability in physics and mathematics’.