Why the principle of the identity of indiscernibles is not contingently true either

Synthese 78 (2):141 - 166 (1989)
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 No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF00869370
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 26,188
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Word and Object.W. V. Quine - 1960 - MIT Press.
The Direction of Time.Hans Reichenbach - 1956 - Dover Publications.

View all 28 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Withering Away, Weakly.F. A. Muller - 2011 - Synthese 180 (2):223 - 233.
The Relative Facts Interpretation and Everett's Note Added in Proof.Christina Conroy - 2012 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 43 (2):112-120.
Schrödinger Logics.C. A. da Costa Newton & Krause Décio - 1994 - Studia Logica 53 (4):533-550.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

124 ( #37,737 of 2,154,091 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

14 ( #36,275 of 2,154,091 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums