Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy of Science 77 (1):117-136 (2010)
|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.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
James Ladyman, Øystein Linnebo & Richard Pettigrew (2012). Identity and Discernibility in Philosophy and Logic. The Review of Symbolic Logic 5 (1):162-186.
F. A. Muller & M. P. Seevinck (2009). Discerning Elementary Particles. Philosophy of Science 76 (2):179-200.
Steven French (1989). Why the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles is Not Contingently True Either. Synthese 78 (2):141 - 166.
Peter Ainsworth (2011). Ontic Structural Realism and the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles. Erkenntnis 75 (1):67-84.
Robert C. Hilborn & Candice L. Yuca (2002). Identical Particles in Quantum Mechanics Revisited. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (3):355-389.
Charles B. Cross (2011). Brute Facts, the Necessity of Identity, and the Identity of Indiscernibles. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (1):1-10.
R. L. Barnette (1978). Does Quantum Mechanics Disprove the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles? Philosophy of Science 45 (3):466-470.
Jonas Rafael Becker Arenhart (2013). Weak Discernibility in Quantum Mechanics: Does It Save PII? Axiomathes 23 (3):461-484.
Added to index2010-02-27
Total downloads282 ( #735 of 739,303 )
Recent downloads (6 months)32 ( #3,683 of 739,303 )
How can I increase my downloads?