Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

There is no such thing as individuality in the quantum realm
https://iai.tv/articles/quantum-physics-..._auid=2020

INTRO: Quantum physics doesn’t just rewrite our equations—it dismantles our ontology. From uncertainty to entanglement, the theory breaks the classical idea of the world as made of individual objects with identities and properties. In the quantum realm, philosopher of science Olimpia Lombardi argues, there are no separate things—only an undivided whole. On the most fundamental level, there is no individual.

EXCERPTS: [...] The first challenge comes from quantum uncertainty. ... The second challenge involves contextual properties. ...

[...] This quantum feature generates great ontological perplexity as it violates the “Principle of Omnimode Determination” historically widely accepted in philosophy. The idea is that, in any individual object, all its determinables are determinate: if the determinable “color” applies to an object, the object necessarily has a certain determinate color, say, red, regardless of its other determinate properties such as round, solid, etc., and regardless of our knowledge of what that determinate color is. While this intuitive principle holds in the classical world, quantum contextuality throws it into crisis: according to the Kochen-Specker Theorem, a quantum system always has determinable properties that are not determinate, that is, that do not have precise values.

[...] The third challenge concerns quantum entanglement ... The aim of the Locality Principle is to rule out physically objectionable kinds of action-at-a-distance. The “Separability Principle” is, by contrast, a fundamental ontological principle: it asserts that the presence of a non-vanishing space-time interval is a sufficient condition for the individuation of physical systems. Einstein's dissatisfaction with quantum mechanics is closely related to the violation of the Separability Principle: “If one renounces the assumption that what is present in different parts of space has an independent, real existence, then I do not at all see what physics is supposed to describe.”

[...] The final challenge involves identical particles. ... It is precisely the ontological nature of quantum indistinguishability that has led many authors to claim that identical quantum particles, being indistinguishable, violate the “Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles” which states that if two individual objects have all their properties in common, then they are actually the same object: without any actual differences between them, their numerical distinction has no basis in reality. Quantum mechanics constitutes a strong challenge to the validity of this traditional principle of metaphysics for reasons that are not exclusively metaphysical... (MORE - missing details)

Logic once again has triumphed over science.

(Jul 27, 2025 08:47 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]The final challenge involves identical particles. ... It is precisely the ontological nature of quantum indistinguishability that has led many authors to claim that identical quantum particles, being indistinguishable, violate the “Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles” which states that if two individual objects have all their properties in common, then they are actually the same object: without any actual differences between them, their numerical distinction has no basis in reality. Quantum mechanics constitutes a strong challenge to the validity of this traditional principle of metaphysics for reasons that are not exclusively metaphysical... ([url=https://iai.tv/articles/quantum-physics-reveals-there-is-no-such-thing-as-things-auid-3267?_auid=2020]MORE - missing details

But would these two objects be the same age relative to one another and if not are they still identical? Just basing that on how much time has elapsed for each particle that makes up the object as they have been jostled, pulled and pushed to different speeds over 15 bn years or whatever.

Edit: just checked with AI. Question: can things be identical if they have different ages?

Ans:

Quote:. No, two things cannot be truly identical if they have different ages. Even if two objects are initially created as identical copies, they will inevitably diverge over time due to various factors like environmental influences, wear and tear, or even random quantum fluctuations. Identity implies sameness in all properties, and age is a property. Therefore, different ages mean different properties, precluding true identity.

(Jul 30, 2025 06:40 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jul 27, 2025 08:47 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]The final challenge involves identical particles. ... It is precisely the ontological nature of quantum indistinguishability that has led many authors to claim that identical quantum particles, being indistinguishable, violate the “Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles” which states that if two individual objects have all their properties in common, then they are actually the same object: without any actual differences between them, their numerical distinction has no basis in reality. Quantum mechanics constitutes a strong challenge to the validity of this traditional principle of metaphysics for reasons that are not exclusively metaphysical...

But would these two objects be the same age relative to one another and if not are they still identical? Just basing that on how much time has elapsed for each particle that makes up the object as they have been jostled, pulled and pushed to different speeds over 15 bn years or whatever.

Edit: just checked with AI. Question: can things be identical if they have different ages?

Ans:

Quote:. No, two things cannot be truly identical if they have different ages. Even if two objects are initially created as identical copies, they will inevitably diverge over time due to various factors like environmental influences, wear and tear, or even random quantum fluctuations. Identity implies sameness in all properties, and age is a property. Therefore, different ages mean different properties, precluding true identity.

Particles having different locations in space would be one distinguishing feature in the context of common sense, but it's somewhat undermined by lack of definite location in between measurements.

"Age" is in a similar situation of ambiguity, though there are surely confined experiments where one could say that _X_ particle was created before _Y_ particle, though the more time that goes by the more difficult that is to track and prove.

At any rate, neither of these "contingent" characteristics (spatial location and age) attributed to objects at the macroscopic level seems to factor into the quantitative properties of particles as described in physics.

Distinguishing between particles: There are two methods for distinguishing between particles. The first method relies on differences in the intrinsic physical properties of the particles, such as mass, electric charge, and spin. If differences exist, it is possible to distinguish between the particles by measuring the relevant properties. However, as far as can be determined, microscopic particles of the same species have completely equivalent physical properties. For instance, every electron has the same electric charge.

Even if the particles have equivalent physical properties, there remains a second method for distinguishing between particles, which is to track the trajectory of each particle [where spatial location and "age" might find hold]. As long as the position of each particle can be measured with infinite precision (even when the particles collide), then there would be no ambiguity about which particle is which.

The problem with the second approach is that it contradicts the principles of quantum mechanics. According to quantum theory, the particles do not possess definite positions during the periods between measurements. Instead, they are governed by wavefunctions that give the probability of finding a particle at each position. As time passes, the wavefunctions tend to spread out and overlap. Once this happens, it becomes impossible to determine, in a subsequent measurement, which of the particle positions correspond to those measured earlier. The particles are then said to be indistinguishable.

Worse is that bosons can even occupy the same quantum state, which encompasses everything we can know about their motion or position.

More chat with AI

Question: Why don’t all identical quantum particles decay at same time?

Answer:

Quote: Identical quantum particles, like those in a radioactive substance, do not decay simultaneously due to the inherent randomness of quantum mechanics. While the decay rate of a large sample is predictable and characterized by half-life, the decay of an individual particle is probabilistic and cannot be pinpointed to a specific time

Inherent randomness…… I assume that’s a property for identical particles. Probabilistic is not a property?

I asked AI again

Quote: probability can be considered a property. Specifically, it's a property of an event or a situation that describes the likelihood of that event occurring. This likelihood is expressed as a numerical value between 0 and 1, where 0 indicates impossibility and 1 indicates certainty.
Here's why probability is considered a property:
Defined by Axioms:
Probability is built upon a set of axioms (fundamental rules) that define its behavior.
Quantifiable:
Probability can be assigned a numerical value, allowing for comparison and calculation.
Satisfies Properties:
It adheres to specific properties like non-negativity, normalization (the probability of the entire sample space is 1), and additivity for mutually exclusive events.
Reflects Likelihood:
It provides a measure of how likely an event is to occur in a given context

Assume that despite particles possessing the property of randomness, probability is not a true property of a particle?

They dismiss anything from a chatbot or LLM at Sciforums or similar places. On the grounds that they are unreliable, intermittent liars or agents of confabulation, and sycophants (go out of their way to accommodate the inquirer's presuppositions or kiss human butt).

(Jul 30, 2025 09:49 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]They dismiss anything from a chatbot or LLM at Sciforums or similar places. On the grounds that they are unreliable, intermittent liars or agents of confabulation, and sycophants (go out of their way to accommodate the inquirer's presuppositions or kiss human butt).

SciForums doesn’t do it for me. Believe it or not they still send me updates on what’s going on but I haven’t been there in a very long time ( not as Zin ).

Quote: In the quantum realm, philosopher of science Olimpia Lombardi argues, there are no separate things—only an undivided whole.

Maybe Lombardi is hinting at the One Electron Universe.

I'm most emphatically not an expert on quantum mechanics, but despite that here are some thoughts about what CC posted:

(Jul 27, 2025 08:47 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]There is no such thing as individuality in the quantum realm
https://iai.tv/articles/quantum-physics-..._auid=2020

First of all, physics shouldn't be confused with reality. Rather, it's a particular kind of conceptual model of reality.

Second, the related point that what quantum mechanics has is a bunch of observable physical variables and a mathematical apparatus for predicting the values of some of the variables on the basis of the values of other variables. When it comes to stating what reality is like on the microscale such as to make the variables come out as they do (the problem of quantum interpretations), there is no consensus and basically, nobody knows.

And third, we do have a pretty good intuitive idea of what physical reality is like here in the classical mesoscale, where there certainly are identifiable things (if we overlook the philosophical problems of identity through change, mereology and so on). How (and even whether) the classical mesoscale can be reduced to the quantum microscale (or to the relativistic macroscale for that matter) are more open questions.

Quote:INTRO: Quantum physics doesn’t just rewrite our equations—it dismantles our ontology. From uncertainty to entanglement, the theory breaks the classical idea of the world as made of individual objects with identities and properties. In the quantum realm, philosopher of science Olimpia Lombardi argues, there are no separate things—only an undivided whole. On the most fundamental level, there is no individual.

Which assumes not only that the quantum microscale is "the most fundamental level" but also that we actually know what's happening down there to make our experiments come out as they do. I'm a bit skeptical about that and am more inclined to think of our mesoscale as the most fundamental (if only epistemologically since it's where our knowledge begins) while the macroscale and the microscale are speculative conceptual extensions based on what is often fragmentary data from astronomical observatories and places like CERN.

Quote:EXCERPTS: [...] The first challenge comes from quantum uncertainty. ... The second challenge involves contextual properties. ...

[...] This quantum feature generates great ontological perplexity as it violates the “Principle of Omnimode Determination” historically widely accepted in philosophy. The idea is that, in any individual object, all its determinables are determinate: if the determinable “color” applies to an object, the object necessarily has a certain determinate color, say, red, regardless of its other determinate properties such as round, solid, etc., and regardless of our knowledge of what that determinate color is. While this intuitive principle holds in the classical world, quantum contextuality throws it into crisis: according to the Kochen-Specker Theorem, a quantum system always has determinable properties that are not determinate, that is, that do not have precise values.

I've toyed with the idea that some quantum particles are limited in how much information they can hold. So imagine four variables: A, B, C and D, where if all four variables are precisely defined that would exceed the amount of information that particle can possess. In other words, if the particle has precisely defined A and B variables, then C and D will remain undefined.

And I've toyed with the totally science-fiction idea that variables that can be undefined might be spatial-temporal location variables. So if we imagine that a mesoscale physical object (arguably composed of quantum particles) might behave the same way, and if we force it to assume precise values for its variables A and B, then it could have undefined values for C and D if those are space and time. Then release the constraints on A and B, and allow C and D to assume more determinate values. Which could create a Tardis-like ability to travel anywhere in space and time instantaneously.

Of course mesoscale objects aren't just simply sums of the quantum particles that make them up. Those quantum particles are all interacting in multi-particle systems that seemingly constrain the values that each of the individual particles can assume. So by the time that we reach the scale of mesoscale objects like the tables, chairs and ourselves, composed of zillions of quantum particles all interacting in huge multiparticle systems, the range of possibilities that imprecise variables can assume is so constrained that each object seems to behave like the familiar objects of our experience.

Quote:[...] The third challenge concerns quantum entanglement ...  The aim of the Locality Principle is to rule out physically objectionable kinds of action-at-a-distance. The “Separability Principle” is, by contrast, a fundamental ontological principle: it asserts that the presence of a non-vanishing space-time interval is a sufficient condition for the individuation of physical systems. Einstein's dissatisfaction with quantum mechanics is closely related to the violation of the Separability Principle: “If one renounces the assumption that what is present in different parts of space has an independent, real existence, then I do not at all see what physics is supposed to describe.”

I'm not sure what I think about quantum entanglement. I suspect that it's an Identity of Indistinguishables kind of issue, where in some sense the entangled particles are actually a single particle. See below:

Quote:[...] The final challenge involves identical particles. ... It is precisely the ontological nature of quantum indistinguishability that has led many authors to claim that identical quantum particles, being indistinguishable, violate the “Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles” which states that if two individual objects have all their properties in common, then they are actually the same object: without any actual differences between them, their numerical distinction has no basis in reality. Quantum mechanics constitutes a strong challenge to the validity of this traditional principle of metaphysics for reasons that are not exclusively metaphysical... (MORE - missing details)

I'm not sure what I think about that.

Presumably it requires information to distinguish two objects as opposed to one. There presumably has to be some distinguishing information: as the author says, "without any actual differences between them, their numerical distinction has no basis in reality".

Does QM agree with that, or does it contradict it?

How can the author say that "identical particles, being indististinguishable, violate the 'Principle of Identity of Indiscernables' which states that if two individual objects have all their properties in common, then they are the same object"? The author starts out talking about "two individual objects" as opposed to "one single object" and presumably has some reason for saying that, some information that justifies that choice of words.

Of course, if particles are limited in their ability to carry information, and some of their variables are contrained to have the same value, and if that makes the rest of their variables undefined, it might make sense to say that they have all become the same particle and are now one rather than many.

Bottom line, while I'm way out of my depth creating quantum interpetations, I don't really think that the 'Principle of Identity of Indiscernables' is at much risk. It might conceivably turn out to be the key to understanding a lot of this stuff. That's what my intuition suggests.