Paul Teller

We extend the work of French and Redhead [1988] further examining the relation of quantum statistics to the assumption that quantum entities have the sort of identity generally assumed for physical objects, more specifically an identity which makes them susceptible to being thought of as conceptually individuatable and labelable even though they cannot be experimentally distinguished. We also further examine the relation of such hypothesized identity of quantum entities to the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles. We conclude that although such an assumption of identity is consistent with the facts of quantum statistics, methodological considerations show that we should take quantum entities to be entirely unindividuatable, in the way suggested by a Fock space description.

Previous work has shown that the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is not correctly seen as one of understanding some allegedly univocal process of measurement in nature which corresponds to the projection postulate. The present paper introduces a new perspective by showing that how we are to understand the nature of the change of quantum mechanical state on measurement depends very sensitively on the interpretation of the state function, and by showing how attention to this dependence can greatly sharpen the problems and relations between them. In particular, the problems take a form resembling their traditional formulation only on an inexact value interpretation, according to which the state function attributes inexact values of quantities to systems. On other interpretations we can apply (with various drawbacks) the subensemble idea, according to which a discontinuous change of quantum mechanical description results on measurement simply because we need a new state function to describe a new object

Table of Contents Volume I Preface to Volumes I and II: A Guide to the Primer Chapter 1, Basic Ideas and Tools Chapter 2, Transcription between English and Sentence Logic Chapter 3, Logical Equivalence, Logical Truths, and Contradictions Chapter 4, Validity and Conditionals Chapter 5, Natural Deduction for Sentence Logic: Fundamentals Chapter 6, Natural Deduction for Sentence Logic: Strategies Chapter 7, Natural Deduction for Sentence Logic: Derived Rules and Derivations without Premises Chapter 8, Truth Tree for Sentence Logic: Fundamentals Chapter 9, Truth Trees for Sentence Logic: Applications Index for Volume 1 Solutions Manual for Volume 1 Table of Contents to Volume II Introduction to Predicate Logic Notes Chapter 1, Predicate Logic: Syntax Chapter 2, Predicate Logic: Semantics and Validity Chapter 3, More about Quantifiers Chapter 4, Transcription Chapter 5, Natural Deduction for Predicate Logic: Fundamentals Chapter 6, More on Natural Deduction for Predicate Logic Chapter 7, Truth Tress for Predicate Logic: Fundamentals Chapter 8, More on Truth Tress for Predicate Logic Chapter 9, Identity, Functions, and Definite Descriptions Chapter 10, Metatheory: The Basic Concepts Chapter 11, Mathematical Induction Chapter 12, Soundness and Completeness for Sentence Logic Trees Chapter 13, Soundness and Completeness for Sentence Logic Derivations Chapter 14, Koenig’s Lemma, Compactness, and Generalization to Infinite Sets of Premises Chapter 15, Interpretations, Soundness, and Completeness for Predicate Logic Index for Volume II Solutions Manual for Volume II Diagrammatic Summary of Rules Corrections to the Text.

Knowledge requires truth, and truth, we suppose, involves unflawed representation. Science does not provide knowledge in this sense but rather provides models, representations that are limited in their accuracy, precision, or, most often, both. Truth as we usually think of it is an idealization, one that serves wonderfully in most ordinary applications, but one that can terribly mislead for certain issues in philosophy. This article sketches how this happens for five important issues, thereby showing how philosophical method must take into account the idealized nature of our familiar conception of truth

This essay endorses the conclusion of Sklar’s “Dappled Theories in a Uniform World” that he announces in his abstract, that notwithstanding recent attacks foundational theories are universal in their scope. But Sklar’s rejection of a “pluralist ontology” is questioned. It is concluded that so called “foundational” and “phenomenological” theories are on a much more equal footing as sources of knowledge than Sklar would allow, that “giving an ontology” generally involves dealing in idealizations, and that a transfigured “ficitonalism” provides an (in many respects) better model of scientific knowledge than the model of “foundational truths.”.