Permutation symmetries which arise in quantum mechanics pose an intriguing problem. It is not clear that particles which exhibit permutation symmetries (i.e. particles which are indiscernible, meaning that they can be swapped with each other without this yielding a new physical state) qualify as "objects" in any reasonable sense of the term. One solution to this puzzle, which I attribute to W.V. Quine, would have us eliminate such particles from our ontology altogether in order to circumvent the metaphysical vexations caused by permutation symmetries. In this essay I argue that Quine's solution is too rash, and in its place I suggest a novel solution based on altering some of the language of quantum mechanics. Before launching into the technical details of indiscernible particles, however, I begin this essay with some remarks on the methodology - instrumentalism - which motivates my arguments.
Permutation symmetries which arise in quantum mechanics pose an intriguing problem. It is not clear that particles which exhibit permutation symmetries (i.e. particles which are indiscernible, meaning that they can be swapped with each other without this yielding a new physical state) qualify as "objects" in any reasonable sense of the term. One solution to this puzzle, which I attribute to W.V. Quine, would have us eliminate such particles from our ontology altogether in order to circumvent the metaphysical vexations caused by permutation symmetries. In this essay I argue that Quine's solution is too rash, and in its place I suggest a novel solution based on altering some of the language of quantum mechanics. Before launching into the technical details of indiscernible particles, however, I begin this essay with some remarks on the methodology - instrumentalism - which motivates my arguments.
This thesis analyses the ontological nature of quantum particles. In it I argue that quantum particles, despite their indistinguishability, are objects in much the same way as classical particles. This similarity provides an important point of continuity between classical and quantum physics. I consider two notions of indistinguishability, that of indiscernibility and permutation symmetry. I argue that neither sort of indistinguishability undermines the identity of quantum particles. I further argue that, when we understand in distinguishability in terms of permutation symmetry, classical particles are just as indistinguishable as quantum particles; for classical physics also possesses permutation symmetry.
The idea that the world is made of particles — little discrete, interacting objects that compose the material bodies of everyday experience — is a durable one. Following the advent of quantum theory, the idea was revised but not abandoned. It remains manifest in the explanatory language of physics, chemistry, and molecular biology. Aside from its durability, there is good reason for the scientific realist to embrace the particle interpretation: such a view can account for the prominent epistemic fact that only limited knowledge of a portion of the material universe is needed in order to make reliable predictions about that portion. Thus, particle interpretations can support an abductive argument from the epistemic facts in favor of a realist reading of physical theory. However, any particle interpretation with this property is untenable. The empirical adequacy of modern particle theories requires adoption of a postulate known as permutation invariance (PI) — the claim that interchanging the role of two particles of the same kind in a dynamical state description results in a description of the identical state. It is the central claim of this essay that PI is incompatible with any particle interpretation strong enough to account for the epistemic facts. This incompatibility extends across all physical theories. To frame and motivate the inconsistency argument, I begin by fixing the relevant notion of particle. To single out those accounts of greatest appeal to the realist, I develop the logically weakest particle ontology that entails the epistemic fact that the world is piecewise predictable, an ontology I call ‘minimal atomism’ (MA). The entire series of scientific conceptions of the particle, from Newton’s mechanically interacting corpuscles to the ‘centers of force’ in classical field theories, all comport with MA. As long as PI is left out, even quantum mechanics can be viewed this way. To assess the impact of PI on this picture, I present a framework for rigorously connecting interpretations to physical theories. In particular, I represent MA as a set of formal conditions on the models of physical theories, the mathematical structures taken to represent states of the world. I also formulate PI — originally introduced as a postulate of non-relativistic quantum mechanics — in theory independent terms. With all of these pieces in hand, I am then able to present a proof of the inconsistency of PI and MA. In the second part of the essay, I survey responses to the inconsistency result open to the scientific realist. The two most plausible approaches involve abandoning particles in one way or another. The first alternative interpretation considered takes the property bearing objects of the world to be regions of space rather than particles. In this view, the properties once attributed to particles in quantum states are attributed instead to one or more regions of space. PI no longer obtains in this case, at least not as a statement about the permutation symmetry of property bearers. Rather, the new interpretation naturally imposes an analogous constraint on quantum states. The second major approach to evading the inconsistency result is to dispense with objects altogether. This is the recommendation of so-called ‘Ontic Structural Realism’ (OSR). The central OSR thesis is that structure rather than entities are the basic ontological components of the world. OSR is intended to embrace the ‘miracle’ argument in favor of scientific realism (it would be a miracle if a scientific theory were predictively successful unless it were also approximately true with regard to its description of reality) while avoiding the pessimistic meta-induction (most predictively successful theories along with their associated ontologies have been overturned, so we should expect the same of our current theories). I demonstrate that one principal motivation for OSR based on the under-determination of interpretations in QM is actually dissolved by the incompatibility result. At the same time, I suggest reasons to think that OSR fares no better with respect to the pessimistic meta-induction than traditional realism does. Thus, while PI and MA may be incompatible, object ontologies remain the best option for the realist.
One recent debate in philosophy of physics has centered whether quantum particles are individuals or not. The received view is that particles are not individuals and the standard methodology is to approach the question via the structure of quantum theory. I challenge both the received view and the standard methodology. I contend not only that the structure of quantum theory is not the right place to look for conditions of individuality that quantum particles may or may not satisfy, but also that there is an important role for traditional metaphysics to play. Consequently, my work brings together the philosophy of physics and traditional metaphysics literatures to shed new light on the debate over the individuality of quantum particles. I defend a set of conditions of individuality and argue that quantum particles satisfy these conditions thereby defending the view that particles are individuals in opposition to the received view. I also challenge a second feature of the standard methodology insofar as I challenge the significance of the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles in terms of which much discussion in the philosophy of physics literature is framed. My work is significant in a number of additional ways as well. My work implies that the dominant explanation for quantum statistics in terms of non-individuality is incorrect and it also undermines the ontic-structural realists metaphysical underdetermination challenge to the scientific realist.
The permutation symmetry of quantum mechanics is widely thought to imply a sort of metaphysical underdetermination about the identity of particles. Despite claims to the contrary, this implication does not hold in the more fundamental quantum field theory, where an ontology of particles is not generally available. Although permutations are often defined as acting on particles, a more general account of permutation symmetry can be formulated using superselection theory. As a result, permutation symmetry applies even in field theories with no particle interpretation. The quantum mechanical account of permutations acting on particles is recovered as a special case.
This dissertation is ordered into three Parts. Part I is an investigation into identity, indiscernibility and individuality in logic and metaphysics. In Chapter 2, I investigate identity and discernibility in classical first-order logic. My aim will will be to define four different ways in which objects can be discerned from one another, and to relate these definitions: (i) to the idea of symmetry; and (ii) to the idea of individuality. In Chapter 3, the four kinds of discernibility are put to use in defining four rival metaphysical theses about indiscernibility and individuality. Part II sets up a philosophical framework for the work of Part III. In Chapter 4, I give an account of the rational reconstruction of concepts, inspired chiefly by Carnap and Haslanger. I also offer an account of the interpretation of physical theories. In Chapter 5, I turn to the specific problem of finding candidate concepts of particle. I present five desiderata that any putative explication ought to satisfy, in order that the proposed concept is a concept of particle at all. Part III surveys three rival proposals for the concept of particle in quantum mechanics. In Chapter 6, I define factorism and distinguish it from haecceitism. I then propose an amendment to recent work by Saunders, Muller and Seevinck, which seeks to show that factorist particles are all at least weakly discernible. I then present reasons for rejecting factorism. In Chapter 7, I investigate and build on recent heterodox proposals by Ghirardi, Marinatto and Weber about the most natural concept of entanglement, and by Zanardi about the idea of a natural decomposition of an assembly. In Chapter 8, I appraise the first of my two heterodox proposals for the concept of particle, varietism. I define varietism, and then compare its performance against the desiderata laid out in Chapter 5. I argue that, despite its many merits, varietism suffers a fatal ambiguity problem. In Chapter 9, I present the second heterodox proposal: emergentism. I argue that emergentism provides the best concept of particle, but that it is does so imperfectly; so there may be no concept of particle to be had in quantum mechanics. If emergentism is true, then particles are (higher-order) properties of the assembly, itself treated as the basic bearer of properties.
Abstract I would like to attack a certain view: the view that the concept of identity can fail to apply to some things although, for some positive integern, we havenof them. The idea of entities without self-identity is seriously entertained in the philosophy of quantum mechanics (QM). It is so pervasive that it has been labelled the Received View (French and Krause 2006.Identity in Physics: A Historical, Philosophical, and Formal Analysis. Oxford: Oxford UP: 105). I introduce the Received View in Section 1. In Section 2 I explain what I mean by “entity” (synonymously, by “object” and “thing”), and I argue that supporters of the Received View should agree with my characterization of the corresponding notion ofentity(object, thing). I also explain what I mean by “identity”, and I show that supporters of the Received View agree with my characterization of that notion. In Section 3 I argue that the concept of identity, so characterized, is one with the concept of oneness. Thus, it cannot but apply to what belongs to a collection withnelements,nbeing a positive integer. In Section 4 I add some considerations on the primitiveness of identity or unity and the status of the Identity of Indiscernibles. In Section 5 I address the problem of how reference to indiscernible objects with identity can be achieved.