Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 78, Issue 2, pp 141–166 | Cite as

Why the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles is not contingently true either

  • Steven French
Article

Abstract

Faced with strong arguments to the effect that Leibniz'sPrinciple of the Identity of Indiscernibles (PII) is not a necessary truth, many supporters of the Principle have staged a strategic retreat to the claim that it is contingently true in this, the actual, world. The purpose of this paper is to examine the status of the various forms of PII in both classical and quantum physics, and it is concluded that this latter view is at best doubtful, at worst, simply wrong.

Keywords

Strong Argument Strategic Retreat 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, R.: 1979, ‘Primitive Thisness and Primitive Identity’,Journal of Philosophy 76, 5–26.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, D. M.: 1978,Nominalism and Realism, Vols. I and II, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Ayer, A. J.: 1954,Philosophical Essays, MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Bach, A.: 1985, ‘On the Quantum Properties of Indistinguishable Classical Particles’,Lettere al Nuovo Cimento 43, 383–87.Google Scholar
  5. Barnette, R. L.: 1978, ‘Does Quantum Mechanics Disprove the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles?’,Philosophy of Science 45, 466–70.Google Scholar
  6. Boltzmann, L.: 1974,Vorlesungen Uber die Principe der Mechanik, (Leipzig, Barth 1897, rep. 1974, Wiss. Buchges Durmstadt.Google Scholar
  7. Casullo, A.: 1982, ‘Particulars, Substrata and Identity of Indiscernibles’,Philosophy of Science,49, 591–603.Google Scholar
  8. Casullo, A.: 1984, ‘The Contingent Identity of Particulars and Universals’,Mind 123, 527–41.Google Scholar
  9. Cortes, A.: 1976, ‘Leibniz's Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles: A False Principle’,Philosophy of Science 43, 491–505.Google Scholar
  10. Cufaro-Petroni, N., A. Kyprianidis, Z. Maric, D. Sardelis and J. P. Vigier: 1984, ‘Causal Stochastic Interpretation of Fermi Dirac Statistics in terms of Distinguishable Non-Locally Correlated Particles’,Physics Letters 101A, 4–6.Google Scholar
  11. Dewdney, C., Kyprianidis and J. P. Vigier: 1984, ‘Illustration of the Causal Model of Quantum Statistics’,Journal of Physics A 17, 741–44.Google Scholar
  12. Dirac, P. A. M.: 1930,The Principle of Quantum Mechanics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, (4th ed. 1978).Google Scholar
  13. D'Espagnat, B.: 1976,Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, W. A. Benjamin, New York.Google Scholar
  14. French, S.: 1984, ‘Identity and Individuality in Classical and Quantum Physics’, Ph.D. thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
  15. French, S. and M. Redhead: 1988, ‘Quantum Physics and the Identity of Indiscernibles’,British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39, 233–246.Google Scholar
  16. Frankfurt, H.: 1976, ‘Leibniz, A Collection of Critical Essays’, Notre Dame University Press, Notre Dame, Indiana.Google Scholar
  17. Ginsberg, A.: 1981, ‘Quantum Theory and the Identity of Indiscernibles Revisited’,Philosophy of Science 48, 487–91.Google Scholar
  18. Graves, J. C.: 1971,The Conceptual Foundations of Contemporary Relativity Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  19. Greenberg, O. W. and A. M. L. Messiah: 1964, ‘Symmetrization Postulate and its Experimental Foundation’,Physical Review 136B, 248–67.Google Scholar
  20. Greenberg, O. W. and C. A. Nelson: 1977, ‘Color Models of Hadrons’,Physics Reports 32, 69–121.Google Scholar
  21. ter Haar, D.: 1952,Elements of Statistical Mechanics, Rinehart, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Hacking, I.: 1975, ‘The Identity of Indiscernibles’,Journal of Philosophy 72, 249–56.Google Scholar
  23. Hartle, J. B. and J. R. Taylor: 1969, ‘Quantum Mechanics of Para-Particles’,Physical Review 178, 2043–51.Google Scholar
  24. Hoy, R. C.: 1984, ‘Inquiry, Intrinsic Properties and the Identity of Indiscernibles’,Synthese 61, 275–97.Google Scholar
  25. Hodgson, P. E.: 1980, ‘Existence Criteria in Elementary Particle Physics’, report of paper read at the Symposium on the Philosophical Aspects of Quantum Theory, Dubrovnik, April 1980, Oxford University Nuclear Physics Lab., reprint Ref. 27/80.Google Scholar
  26. Jammer, M.: 1954,Concepts of Space, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, (2nd ed. 1969).Google Scholar
  27. Jammer, M.: 1966,The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics, McGraw-Hill, New York, (2nd ed. 1973).Google Scholar
  28. Jammer, M.: 1974,The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Jauch, M.: 1966,Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  30. Kyprianidis, A., D. Sardelis and J. P. Vigier: 1984, ‘Causal Non-Local Character of Quantum Statistics’,Physics Letters 100A, 228–30.Google Scholar
  31. Landau, L. and E. M. Lifshitz: 1965, ‘Quantum Mechanics’, Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  32. Landshoff, P. V. and H. P. Stapp: 1967, ‘Parastatistics and a Unified Theory of Identical Particles’,Annals of Physics 45, 72–92.Google Scholar
  33. Leibniz, G. W.: 1916,New Essays Concerning Human Understanding, trans. by A. G. Langley, London.Google Scholar
  34. Loux, M. (ed.): 1976,Universals and Particulars: Reading in Ontology, Notre Dame University Press, Notre Dame, Indiana.Google Scholar
  35. Margenau, H.: 1944, ‘The Exclusion Principle and its Philosophical Importance’,Philosophy of Science 11, 187–208.Google Scholar
  36. Margenau, H.: 1950,The Nature of Physical Reality, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Marsh, R. C. (ed.): 1956,Logic and Knowledge, New York.Google Scholar
  38. Misner, C., K. Thorne and J. Wheeler: 1973,Gravitation, Freeman, San Franscisco.Google Scholar
  39. de Muynck, W.: 1975, ‘Distinguishable and Indistinguishable Particle Description of Systems of Identical Particles’,International Journal of Theoretical Physics 14, 327–46.Google Scholar
  40. Newton, I.: 1952,Opticks, Dover, (4th ed. 1760).Google Scholar
  41. Post, H. R.: 1963, ‘Individuality and Physics’, Radio talk repeated inThe Listener, 10 October 1963 and in Vedanta for East and West, available as a Departmental Report, Dept. of History and Philosophy of Science, Chelsea College, University of London.Google Scholar
  42. Quine, W. V. O.: 1960,Word and Object, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  43. Quinton, A.: 1973,The Nature of Things, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  44. Redhead, M.: 1983, ‘Quantum Field Theory for Philosophers’, inProceedings of the 1982Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 2, p. 57.Google Scholar
  45. Reichenbach, H.: 1956,The Direction of Time, University of California Press, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  46. Reichenbach, H.: 1965,Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, University of California Press, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  47. Robinson, D.: 1982, ‘Re-Identifying Matter’,The Philosophical Review 111, 317–41.Google Scholar
  48. Schrödinger, E.: 1935, ‘Discussion of Probability Relations Between Separated Systems’,Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 31, 555–62.Google Scholar
  49. Searle, J. R.: 1969,Speech Acts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  50. Shadmi, Y.: 1978, ‘Teaching the Exclusion Principle with Philosophical Flavour’,American Journal of Physics 46, 844–48.Google Scholar
  51. de Sitter, W.: 1917, ‘On the Relativity of Inertia. Remarks Concerning Einstein's Latest Hypothesis’,Proc. K. Ak. Amst. 19, 1217–25; and20, 229–43.Google Scholar
  52. Strawson, P. F.: 1959,Individuals, Methuen, London, (2nd ed. 1964).Google Scholar
  53. Stolt, R. H. and J. R. Taylor: 1970, ‘Correspondence Between the First and Second Quantised Theories of Paraparticles’,Nuclear Physics B19, 1–19.Google Scholar
  54. Sudarshan, E. C. A. and J. Mehra: 1970, ‘Classical Statistical Mechanics of Identical Particles and Quantum Effects’,International Journal of Theoretical Physics 3, 245–53.Google Scholar
  55. Teller, P.: 1983, ‘Quantum Physics, The Identity of Indiscernibles and Some Unanswered Questions’,Philosophy of Science 50, 309–19.Google Scholar
  56. Teller, P.: 1986, ‘Relational Holism and Quantum Mechanics’,British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37, 71–81.Google Scholar
  57. Tershoff, J. and D. Bayer: 1983, ‘Quantum Statistics for Distinguishable Particles’,Physical Review Letters 50, 553–54.Google Scholar
  58. Van Fraassen, B.: 1984, ‘The Problem of Indistinguishable Particles’, in J. T. Cushing, C. F. Delaney and G. M. Gutting (eds.),Science and Reality: Recent Work in the Philosophy of Science, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, pp. 153–72.Google Scholar
  59. Weyl, H.: 1963,Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science, Atheneum Publishers, New York, (1949 Princeton University Press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven French
    • 1
  1. 1.Centro de Lógica, Epistemologia e História de CiênciaUniversidade Estadual de CampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations