Quantum Superposition, Necessity and the Identity of Indiscernibles
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Those who interpret quantum mechanics literally are forced to follow some variant of Everett's relative state formulation (or "many worlds" interpretation). It is generally assumed that this is a rather bizarre result that many physicists (especially cosmologists) have been forced into because of the evidence. I look at the history of philosophy, however, reveals that rationalism has always flirted with this very idea, from Parmenides to Leibniz to modern times. I will survey some of the philosophical history, and show how the so-called paradox of quantum superposition can be considered a consequence of basic rationalist assumptions such as the principle of sufficient reason and the identity of indiscernibles.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
James Ladyman & Tomasz Bigaj (2010). The Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles and Quantum Mechanics. Philosophy of Science 77 (1):117-136.
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.
Gerald Keaney (2007). The Identity of Indiscernibles as a Logical Truth. Crossroads 1 (2):28-36 Free Online.
C. Lehner (1997). What It Feels Like to Be in a Superposition, and Why: Consciousness and the Interpretation of Everett's Quantum Mechanics. Synthese 110 (2):191-216.
Christoph Lehner (1997). What It Feels Like to Be in a Superposition. And Why. Synthese 110 (2):191-216.
Robert C. Hilborn & Candice L. Yuca (2002). Identical Particles in Quantum Mechanics Revisited. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (3):355-389.
Øystein Linnebo & F. A. Muller (2013). On Witness-Discernibility of Elementary Particles. Erkenntnis 78 (5):1133-1142.
Andrew Soltau, Universe Superposition, Relational Quantum Mechanics, and the Reality of the No-Collapse Universe.
Charles B. Cross (2011). Brute Facts, the Necessity of Identity, and the Identity of Indiscernibles. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (1):1-10.
Michael Della Rocca (2005). Two Spheres, Twenty Spheres, and the Identity of Indiscernibles. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (4):480–492.
R. L. Barnette (1978). Does Quantum Mechanics Disprove the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles? Philosophy of Science 45 (3):466-470.
Steven French (1989). Why the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles is Not Contingently True Either. Synthese 78 (2):141 - 166.
Simon Saunders (2003). Physics and Leibniz's Principles. In Katherine Brading & Elena Castellani (eds.), Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections. Cambridge University Press 289--307.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads4 ( #529,325 of 1,789,795 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?