Originally posted by Raven Guardia
hh> what does:?
¿Üè
^^^^ those mean?
One way of approaching this question is to consider the impact of the theory on our understanding of objects as individuals with well defined identity conditions. One view is that quantum theory implies that the fundamental particles of physics cannot be regarded as individual objects in this sense. Such a view has motivated the development of non-standard formal systems which are appropriate for representing such non-individual objects. However, it has also been argued that quantum physics is in fact compatible with a metaphysics of individual objects. Nevertheless, such objects are indistinguishable in a sense which leads to the violation of Leibniz's famous Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles. Finally, this underdetermination of the metaphysics of individuality by the physics has important implications for the realism-antirealism debate.
Originally posted by hh?
One way of approaching this question is to consider the impact of the theory on our understanding of objects as individuals with well defined identity conditions. One view is that quantum theory implies that the fundamental particles of physics cannot be regarded as individual objects in this sense. Such a view has motivated the development of non-standard formal systems which are appropriate for representing such non-individual objects. However, it has also been argued that quantum physics is in fact compatible with a metaphysics of individual objects. Nevertheless, such objects are indistinguishable in a sense which leads to the violation of Leibniz's famous Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles. Finally, this underdetermination of the metaphysics of individuality by the physics has important implications for the realism-antirealism debate.
yeah, I ment in english 😬
Originally posted by Raven Guardia
yeah, I ment in english 😬
ok i'll simplify it that a permutation of the particles is counted as giving a different arrangement in classical statistical mechanics implies that, although they are indistinguishable, such particles can be regarded as individuals (indeed, Boltzmann himself made this explicit in the first axiom of his ‘Lectures on Mechanics’). Since this individuality resides in something over and above the intrinsic properties of the particles in terms of which they can be regarded as indistinguishable, it has been called ‘Transcendental Individuality’ by Post (1963). This notion can be cashed out in various well-known ways, as indicated in the Introduction above: in terms of some kind of underlying Lockean substance (French 1989a), for example, or in terms of primitive thisness (Teller 1995). More generally, one might approach it in modal fashion, through the doctrine of haecceitism: this asserts that two possible worlds may describe some individual in qualitatively the same way (that is, as possessing the same set of properties), yet represent that individual differently by ascribing a different haecceity or thisness in each world, or more generally, by ascribing some non-qualitative aspect to the individual.