Quantum theory is the land of indiscernible things, of things that in some situations cannot be put apart. This contrasts in much with standard mathematics and classical logic, which were elaborated to deal with \textit{individuals}, discernible things. Many thinkers, among them the mathematician Yuri Manin, have proposed that a more general theory of `sets' than standard set theories (where sets are collections of discernible elements) should be elaborated to cope with quantum physics. Quasi-set theory was proposed with such an aim. In this paper, we consider some aspects of this theory and discuss the way we can use such a theory as a framework for constructing deformable (not rigid) structures where indiscernible things can be considered but with one additional and fundamental detail: these structures cannot be extended to rigid structures as it happens in the standard frameworks. Really, the way of dealing with indiscernible (or indistinguishable) elements within a `standard' framework such as a `classical' set theory (like the ZFC system) requires the confinement of the discussion to deformable (non-rigid) structures. But in ZFC every structure can be extended to a rigid structure (encompassing only the trivial automorphism -- the identity function), so that in the extended structure (or in the whole universe) one can realize that the supposed indiscernible objects are not indiscernible at all. Quasi-set theory is such that the universe of quasi-sets is deformable and in such a theory one can construct deformable structures which cannot be extended to rigid ones. The aim of this paper is to put these things in a clear way.
Quantum theory is the land of indiscernible things, of things that in some situations cannot be put apart. This contrasts in much with standard mathematics and classical logic, which were elaborated to deal with \textit{individuals}, discernible things. Many thinkers, among them the mathematician Yuri Manin, have proposed that a more general theory of sets' than standard set theories (where sets are collections of discernible elements) should be elaborated to cope with quantum physics. Quasi-set theory was proposed with such an aim. In this paper, we consider some aspects of this theory and discuss the way we can use such a theory as a framework for constructing deformable (not rigid) structures where indiscernible things can be considered but with one additional and fundamental detail: these structures cannot be extended to rigid structures as it happens in the standard frameworks. Really, the way of dealing with indiscernible (or indistinguishable) elements within a standard' framework such as a `classical' set theory (like the ZFC system) requires the confinement of the discussion to deformable (non-rigid) structures. But in ZFC every structure can be extended to a rigid structure (encompassing only the trivial automorphism -- the identity function), so that in the extended structure (or in the whole universe) one can realize that the supposed indiscernible objects are not indiscernible at all. Quasi-set theory is such that the universe of quasi-sets is deformable and in such a theory one can construct deformable structures which cannot be extended to rigid ones. The aim of this paper is to put these things in a clear way.
Quasi-set theory was proposed as a mathematical context to investigate collections of indistinguishable objects. After presenting an outline of this theory, we define an algebra that has most of the standard properties of an orthocomplete orthomodular lattice, which is the lattice of the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space. We call the mathematical structure so obtained I-lattice. After discussing, in a preliminary form, some aspects of such a structure, we indicate the next problem of axiomatizing the corresponding logic, that is, a logic which has I-lattices as its algebraic models. We suggest that the intuitions that the `logic of quantum mechanics' would be not classical logic (with its Boolean algebra), is consonant with the idea of considering indistinguishability right from the start, that is, as a primitive concept. In other words, indiscernibility seems to lead `directly' to I-lattices. In the first sections, we present the main motivations and a `classical' situation which mirrors that one we focus on the last part of the paper. This paper is our first study of the algebraic structure of indiscernibility within quasi-set theory.
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 work, we discuss a formal way of dealing with the properties of contextual systems. Our approach is to assume that properties describing the same physical quantity, but belonging to different measurement contexts, are indistinguishable in a strong sense. To construct the formal theoretical structure, we develop a description using quasi-set theory, which is a set-theoretical framework built to describe collections of elements that violate Leibnitz's principle of identity of indiscernibles. This framework allows us to consider a new ontology in order to study the properties of quantum systems. This article is part of the theme issue 'Contextuality and probability in quantum mechanics and beyond'.
Are there quantum objects? What are they if they are neither given nor resemble anything familiar? To answer these questions we have to abstract from the substantive features of familiar things, delineate the pure logical forms by which we acknowledge objects and show how the forms are fulfilled in quantum theories. We have to explicate, in general terms and without resorting to the given, what we mean by objects. The clear criteria will enable us to affirm the objectivity of quantum theories. Auyang 1995, p. 5 Introduction Cantor, famously, defined a set as ‘… collections into a whole of definite, distinct objects of our intuition or of our thought’ (Cantor 1955, p. 85, our emphasis). On this basis the standard formulations of set theory, and consequently much of contemporary mathematics, are erected. Reflecting upon this definition, and the underlying ontological presuppositions, the question immediately arises, how are we to treat, mathematically, collections of objects which are not distinct individuals? This question becomes particularly acute in the quantum mechanical context, of course. As Yu. I. Manin noted at the 1974 American Mathematical Society Congress on the Hilbert Problems, We should consider possibilities of developing a totally new language to speak about infinity [that is, axioms for set theory]. Classical critics of Cantor (Brouwer et al. ) argue that, say, the general choice is an illicit extrapolation of the finite case.
Quasi-set theory was developed to deal with collections of indistinguishable objects. In standard mathematics, there are no such kind of entities, for indistinguishability (agreement with respect to all properties) entails numerical identity. The main motivation underlying such a theory is of course quantum physics, for collections of indistinguishable (’identical’ in the physicists’ jargon) particles cannot be regarded as ’sets’ of standard set theories, which are collections of distinguishable objects. In this paper, a rationale for the development of such a theory is presented, motivated by Heinz Post’s claim that indistinguishability of quantum entities should be attributed ’right at the start’.
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.