Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:10:17.597Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles and Quantum Mechanics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

James Ladyman  and
Tomasz Bigaj
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 77 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 117 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bigaj, T., Ladyman, T., and Linnebo, O. (n.d.), “Are Fermions Always Entangled?”Google Scholar
Black, M. (1952), “The Identity of Indiscernibles”, The Identity of Indiscernibles 61:153–164.Google Scholar
Dieks, D., and Versteegh, M. (2008), “Identical Quantum Particles and Weak Discernibility”, Identical Quantum Particles and Weak Discernibility 38:923–934.Google Scholar
French, S., and Krause, D. (2006), Identity and Physics: A Historical, Philosophical and Formal Analysis. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, S., and Redhead, M. (1988), “Quantum Physics and the Identity of Indiscernibles”, Quantum Physics and the Identity of Indiscernibles 39:233–246.Google Scholar
Hawley, K. (2006), “Weak Discernibility”, Weak Discernibility 66:300–303.Google Scholar
Hawley, K. (2009), “Identity and Indiscernibility”, Identity and Indiscernibility 118:101–119.Google Scholar
Ladyman, J. (2007), “On the Identity and Diversity of Objects in a Structure”, On the Identity and Diversity of Objects in a Structure 81:23–43.Google Scholar
Leitgeb, H., and Ladyman, J. (2008), “Criteria of Identity and Structuralist Ontology”, Criteria of Identity and Structuralist Ontology 16:388–396.Google Scholar
Linnebo, O. (2008), “Structuralism and the Notion of Dependence”, Structuralism and the Notion of Dependence 58:59–79.Google Scholar
Lyre, H. (2009), “Humean Perspectives on Structural Realism”, in Proceedings of the 1st Plenary Conference of the ESF Programme “Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective” in Vienna, 18–20 December 2008. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Messiah, A. M. L., and Greenberg, O. W. (1964), “Symmetrization Postulate and Its Experimental Foundation”, Symmetrization Postulate and Its Experimental Foundation 136B:248–267.Google Scholar
Muller, F., and Saunders, S. (2008), “Discerning Fermions”, Discerning Fermions 59:499–548.Google Scholar
Muller, F., and Seevinck, M. (2009), “Discerning Elementary Particles”, Discerning Elementary Particles 76:179–200.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1976), “Grades of Discriminability”, Grades of Discriminability 73:113–116.Google Scholar
Saunders, S. (2006), “Are Quantum Particles Objects?”, Are Quantum Particles Objects? 66:52–63.Google Scholar
Stachel, J. (2005), “Structural Realism and Contextual Individuality”, in Ben-Menahem, Y. (ed.), Hilary Putnam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B., and Peschard, I. (2008), “Identity over Time: Objectively, Subjectively”, Identity over Time: Objectively, Subjectively 58:15–35.Google Scholar