|Abstract||In this paper we try to justify our way of looking for an alternative approach to quantum mechanics, which is based on a non-classical logic. We consider two specific questions related to quantum theory, namely, entanglement and the indiscernibility of quanta. We characterize individuals, and then explain in what sense entanglement is a concept which can be applied to individuals in a restricted sense only. Then, we turn to indiscernibility and, after realizing that this concept is of a fundamental importance, we mention the ‘traditional’ theory of identity (TTI) of standard logic and mathematics, which underly the basic formalism of quantum theory. Then we propose to call the Problem of Identity the question whether identity of objects can be justified, and under what conditions. As in the Hume’s celebrated Problem of Induction, we conclude that the attribution of transtemporal identity to an object (either a macroscopic or a microscopic one) has no logic justification, and must be considered as a metaphysical hypothesis. Numerical identity is also put aside for similar reasons. Then we guess that identity is just an useful concept, but which in certain fields, mainly in the quantum realm, could be substituted by a weaker concept of indiscernibility. This assumption motivates us to look for an interpretation of quantum mechanics based on a non-classical logic, termed non-reflexive, and the corresponding mechanics is called non-reflexive quantum mechanics.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Valia Allori & Nino Zanghi (2008). On the Classical Limit of Quantum Mechanics. Foundations of Physics 10.1007/S10701-008-9259-4.
Guillaume Adenier (ed.) (2007). Quantum Theory, Reconsideration of Foundations 4: Växjö (Sweden), 11-16 June, 2007. American Institute of Physics.
Nicholas Maxwell (1975). Does the Minimal Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Resolve the Measurement Problem? Methodology and Science 8:84-101.
Nicholas Maxwell (1976). Towards a Micro Realistic Version of Quantum Mechanics, Part I. Foundations of Physics 6 (3):275-292.
Peter Mittelstaedt (2012). Are the Laws of Quantum Logic Laws of Nature? Journal for General Philosophy of Science 43 (2):215-222.
J. Bub (2000). Indeterminacy and Entanglement: The Challenge of Quantum Mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (4):597-615.
Michael Redhead & Paul Teller (1992). Particle Labels and the Theory of Indistinguishable Particles in Quantum Mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43 (2):201-218.
Peter Gibbins (1987). Particles and Paradoxes: The Limits of Quantum Logic. Cambridge University Press.
Angelo Bassi (ed.) (2006). Quantum Mechanics: Are There Quantum Jumps? Trieste, Italy, 5 Spetember -2005 and on the Present Status of Quantum Mechanics Lošinj, Croatia 7-9 September 2005. [REVIEW] American Institute of Physics.
Jeffrey Bub (1994). How to Interpret Quantum Mechanics. Erkenntnis 41 (2):253 - 273.
Jonas Rafael Becker Arenhart (forthcoming). Weak Discernibility in Quantum Mechanics: Does It Save PII? Axiomathes.
Allen Stairs (1983). Quantum Logic, Realism, and Value Definiteness. Philosophy of Science 50 (4):578-602.
John T. Bruer (1982). The Classical Limit of Quantum Theory. Synthese 50 (2):167 - 212.
Robert C. Hilborn & Candice L. Yuca (2002). Identical Particles in Quantum Mechanics Revisited. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (3):355-389.
Added to index2011-01-11
Total downloads27 ( #45,755 of 549,065 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,065 )
How can I increase my downloads?