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

Qeios

Quantum Physics and the Identity of Indiscernibles: A Logical Analysis

Décio Krause

Published Jul 2, 2026• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

We consider the formulation of Leibniz’s Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles (PII) in a second-order language. We argue that it cannot hold in quantum physics because the notion of identity it encompasses, namely the standard identity of classical logic, does not hold in this realm. We provide some insightful examples to support this view.

DOI
10.32388/rzbxy4

Related papers

The identity of indiscernibles in logic, in mathematics, and with a glimpse into quantum physics

Décio Krause

The Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles (PII) is one of the most debatably discussed subjects in the philosophy of quantum physics. Gen- erally, the discussions focus on the domain of the predicate variables involved in the standard formulation of the principle, with versions where the properties are restricted in several ways. We argue that if we restrict the domain of properties, as happens with Henkin semantics for second- order language, we have no more PII, but only a weaker form of indistin- guishability. In quantum physics, we claim that under the non-individuals interpretation, which accepts that the standard notion of identity does not apply to quantum entities, PII fails not because of the properties, but due to the lack of sense of the notion of identity involved in the principle.

•Sep 24, 2026•0 citations

The Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles and Quantum Mechanics

James Ladyman, Tomasz Bigaj

It is argued that recent discussion of the principle of the identity of indiscernibles (PII) and quantum mechanics has lost sight of the broader philosophical motivation and significance of PII and that the ‘received view' of the status of PII in the light of quantum mechanics survives recent criticisms of it by Muller, Saunders, and Seevinck.

Philosophy of Science•Jan 1, 2010•73 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

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

Quarticles and the identity of indiscernibles

Nick Huggett

Introduction In sections 6 and 7 of their paper in this volume, French and Rickles raise the question of the logical relations between the indistinguishability postulate (IP) and the various senses in which particles might fail to be individuals. In section 6 they refer to the convincing arguments of French and Redhead (1988) and of Butterfield (1993) that IP does not logically entail non-individuality, understood several ways – even though, as all seem to concede, there is something perverse about taking bosons and fermions to be individuals. Going the other way, the possibility of IP violating ‘quons’ (Greenberg, 1991) shows that if non-individuality is taken to mean the absence of continuous distinguishing trajectories, characteristic of standard quantum mechanics (QM), then non-individuality does not entail IP. Nor, as French and Rickles point out, do substance or haecceity views of individuality. But what if we conceive of individuality in terms of the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles (PII)? First, French and Redhead (1988) and Butterfield (1993) have given theorems showing that bosons and fermions violate PII, while the former have also demonstrated violations of PII in the case of a certain paraparticle state. But these cases, as I will explain (and as French and Rickles point out), cover just a very few of the possible kinds of quantum particles, and so for each kind the question arises as to whether it violates PII.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Dec 4, 2003•39 citations

Individuality, Quantum Physics, and a Metaphysics of Nonindividuals

Décio Krause, Jonas R. Becker Arenhart

Intuitively, an individual is a unity, having identity and being such that it is possible at least in principle to discern it from any other individual. But when we leave the intuitive realm and attempt a logical analysis, we find a cluster of problems that are difficult to overcome within standard logico-mathematical apparatuses. This chapter is concerned with some aspects of this intuitive concept of an individual and some related facts about individuation taken from recent discussions that arise in quantum theory, pushing the discussion to a “logical” view. It characterizes individuals by means of invariance by automorphisms. The final part of the chapter proposes a metaphysics where the notion of identity is substituted, for some objects, by a weaker notion of indiscernibility, and the chapter tries to motivate and justify such a move.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Nov 18, 2015•5 citations
We consider the formulation of Leibniz’s Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles (PII) in a second-order language. We argue that it cannot hold in quantum physics because the notion of identity it encompasses, namely the standard identity of classical logic, does not hold in this realm. We provide some insightful examples to support this view.
The Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles (PII) is one of the most debatably discussed subjects in the philosophy of quantum physics. Gen- erally, the discussions focus on the domain of the predicate variables involved in the standard formulation of the principle, with versions where the properties are restricted in several ways. We argue that if we restrict the domain of properties, as happens with Henkin semantics for second- order language, we have no more PII, but only a weaker form of indistin- guishability. In quantum physics, we claim that under the non-individuals interpretation, which accepts that the standard notion of identity does not apply to quantum entities, PII fails not because of the properties, but due to the lack of sense of the notion of identity involved in the principle.
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.
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’.
Introduction In sections 6 and 7 of their paper in this volume, French and Rickles raise the question of the logical relations between the indistinguishability postulate (IP) and the various senses in which particles might fail to be individuals. In section 6 they refer to the convincing arguments of French and Redhead (1988) and of Butterfield (1993) that IP does not logically entail non-individuality, understood several ways – even though, as all seem to concede, there is something perverse about taking bosons and fermions to be individuals. Going the other way, the possibility of IP violating ‘quons’ (Greenberg, 1991) shows that if non-individuality is taken to mean the absence of continuous distinguishing trajectories, characteristic of standard quantum mechanics (QM), then non-individuality does not entail IP. Nor, as French and Rickles point out, do substance or haecceity views of individuality. But what if we conceive of individuality in terms of the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles (PII)? First, French and Redhead (1988) and Butterfield (1993) have given theorems showing that bosons and fermions violate PII, while the former have also demonstrated violations of PII in the case of a certain paraparticle state. But these cases, as I will explain (and as French and Rickles point out), cover just a very few of the possible kinds of quantum particles, and so for each kind the question arises as to whether it violates PII.
Intuitively, an individual is a unity, having identity and being such that it is possible at least in principle to discern it from any other individual. But when we leave the intuitive realm and attempt a logical analysis, we find a cluster of problems that are difficult to overcome within standard logico-mathematical apparatuses. This chapter is concerned with some aspects of this intuitive concept of an individual and some related facts about individuation taken from recent discussions that arise in quantum theory, pushing the discussion to a “logical” view. It characterizes individuals by means of invariance by automorphisms. The final part of the chapter proposes a metaphysics where the notion of identity is substituted, for some objects, by a weaker notion of indiscernibility, and the chapter tries to motivate and justify such a move.