Philosophical Studies

, Volume 163, Issue 3, pp 591–610 | Cite as

Grades of individuality. A pluralistic view of identity in quantum mechanics and in the sciences

Article

Abstract

This paper offers a critical assessment of the current state of the debate about the identity and individuality of material objects. Its main aim, in particular, is to show that, in a sense to be carefully specified, the opposition between the Leibnizian ‘reductionist’ tradition, based on discernibility, and the sort of ‘primitivism’ that denies that facts of identity and individuality must be analysable has become outdated. In particular, it is argued that—contrary to a widespread consensus—‘naturalised’ metaphysics supports both the acceptability of non-qualitatively grounded (both ‘contextual’ and intrinsic) identity and a pluralistic approach to individuality and individuation. A case study is offered that focuses on non-relativistic quantum mechanics, in the context of which primitivism about identity and individuality, rather than being regarded as unscientific, is on the contrary suggested to be preferable to the complicated forms of reductionism that have recently been proposed. More generally, by assuming a plausible form of anti-reductionism about scientific theories and domains, it is claimed that science can be regarded as compatible with, or even as suggesting, the existence of a series of equally plausible grades of individuality. The kind of individuality that prevails in a certain context and at a given level can be ascertained only on the basis of the specific scientific theory at hand.

Keywords

Individuality Discernibility Identity Reductionism Primitivism Contextualism Quantum mechanics 

References

  1. Adams, R. M. (1979). Primitive thisness and primitive identity. Journal of Philosophy, 76, 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayer, A. J. (1954). The identity of the indiscernibles, in philosophical essays. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  3. Batterman, R. W. (2002). The devil in the details. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brody, B. (1980). Identity and essence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Black, M. (1952). The identity of indiscernibles. Mind, 61, 153–164.Google Scholar
  6. Butterfield, J. (1989). The hole truth. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 40, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butterfield, J. (1993). Interpretation and identity in quantum theory. Studies in history and Philosophy of Science, 24, 443–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Church, A. (1956). Introduction to mathematical logic (Vol. I). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Daumer, M., Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., & Zanghì, N. (1996). Naïve realism about operators. Erkenntnis, 45, 379–397.Google Scholar
  10. Dieks, D., & Versteegh, M. (2008). Identical quantum particles and weak discernibility. Foundations of Physics, 38, 923–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dizadji-Bahmani, F., Frigg, R., & Hartmann, S. (2010). Who’s afraid of nagelian reduction? Erkenntnis, 73, 393–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dorato, M., & Pauri, M. (2006). Holism and structuralism in classical and quantum general relativity. In D. Rickles, S. French, & J. Saatsi (Eds.), Structural foundations of quantum gravity (pp. 121–151). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Earman, J., & Norton, J. D. (1987). What price space-time substantivalism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 38, 515–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. French, S., & Redhead, M. (1988). Quantum mechanics and the identity of the indiscernibles. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 39, 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hacking, I. (1975). The identity of indiscernibles. Journal of Philosophy, 72, 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hawley, K. (2009). Identity and indiscernibility. Mind, 118, 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Howard, D. (1997). A peek behind the Veil of Maya: Einstein, Schopenhauer, and the historical background of the conception of space as a ground for the individuation of physical systems. In J. Earman & J. Norton (Eds.), The cosmos of science: Essays of exploration, Pittsburgh–Konstanz series in the philosophy and history of science (Vol. 6, pp. 87–150). Pittsburgh and Universitätsverlag, Konstanz: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  18. Huggett, N. (2003). Quarticles and the identity of the indiscernibles. In K. Brading & E. Castellani (Eds.), Symmetries in physics: Philosophical reflections (pp. 239–249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Katz, B. D. (1983). The identity of the indiscernibles revisited. Philosophical Studies, 44, 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ladyman, J. (2007). Scientific structuralism: On the identity and diversity of objects in a structure. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume, 81, 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ladyman, J., & Bigaj, T. (2010). The principle of the identity of indiscernibles and quantum mechanics. Philosophy of Science, 77, 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morganti, M. (2009). Inherent properties and statistics with individual particles in quantum mechanics. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 40, 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Muller, F. A., & Saunders, S. (2008). Discerning fermions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59, 499–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muller, F. A., & Seevinck, M. P. (2009). Discerning elementary particles. Philosophy of Science., 76, 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Leary-Hawthorne, J. (1995). The bundle theory of substance and the identity of the indiscernibles. Analysis, 55, 191–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Odegard, D. (1964). Indiscernibles. Philosophical Quarterly, 14, 204–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Post, H., (1963): Individuality in physics, in The Listener, 70, 534-537, reprinted in 1973 in Vedanta for East and West, 32, 14–22.Google Scholar
  28. Quine, W.v. O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Quine, W.v. O. (1976). Grades of discriminability. Journal of Philosophy, 73, 113–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. (2006). How not to trivialise the identity of the indiscernibles. In P. F. Strawson & A. Chakrabarti (Eds.), Universals, concepts and qualities: New essays on the meaning of predicates (pp. 205–224). London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  31. Saunders, S. (2006). Are quantum particles objects? Analysis, 66, 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stachel, J. (1993). The meaning of general covariance. In J. Earman, A. Janis, G. Massey, & N. Rescher (Eds.), Philosophical problems of the internal and external worlds: Essays on the philosophy of Adolf Grünbaum (pp. 129–160). Pittsburgh and Universitätsverlag, Konstanz: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  33. Whitehead, A. N., & Russell, B. (1925). Principia mathematica (Vol. I). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Rome ‘RomaTre’RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations