Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 69 references

A Realist Approach to Quantum Individuality: Against the "Received" and "Alternative" Views

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Quantum individuality is a relational invariant: a minimal set of powers that generates all others in a given degree of complexity.

desk verdict A genuinely useful meta-critique of the quantum individuality debate, but the constructive 'quantum individual' is a promissory note that needs the deferred proofs or an explicit conditional framing. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10680 v1 pith:DADDZGYU submitted 2025-09-12 quant-ph physics.hist-ph

Christian de Ronde , Ivan Klarreich This is my paper
classification quant-phphysics.hist-ph MSC 81P0581P10
keywords quantumindividualitynon-individualityrelationalrealismpowersofactionglobalintensivevaluationKochen-Speckeroperationalinvarianceparticles
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the two dominant philosophical accounts of quantum individuality — the view that quantum particles are non-individuals, and the view that they are contextually emergent classical particles — are not genuine opposites. Both, the authors claim, inherit the same anti-realist, atomist methodology imposed by the founders of the standard formulation of quantum mechanics, taking 'particle' as an unquestioned starting point. The paper proposes instead a relational realist definition: a quantum individual is a minimal set of powers of action (projectors) of a given complexity that can generate all powers and their intensities within that degree. Because this definition is invariant under changes of basis and factorization, it is objective; because the relevant degree is tied to an experimental arrangement, it is frame-relative. If correct, this dissolves the received/alternative opposition and replaces it with a single invariant concept of quantum individuality.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing structure is the graph of powers G(H): its vertices are projection operators, called 'powers of action,' and an edge links two powers exactly when the corresponding projectors commute. A Global Intensive Valuation (GIV) maps these projectors into [0,1] with the requirement that for any piecewise orthogonal family the value of the sum equals the sum of values, giving an Intensive State of Affairs (ISA) intended to bypass the Kochen–Specker obstruction to binary valuations. The definition of a quantum individual rests on two theorems — the Basis Invariance Theorem and the Factorization Invariance Theorem — which are stated without proof and deferred to an earlier paper by the

What would settle it

Find a Hilbert space and an Intensive State of Affairs for which two different minimal sets of powers of the same degree N generate distinct families of powers (or assign different potentia), demonstrating basis-dependent individuality; or exhibit a projector whose intensity cannot be assigned consistently under the GIV axioms, contradicting the claimed non-contextual valuation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the authors' account, the central discovery is that the reference of quantum mechanics need not be sought among particles or their negations. Starting from the graph of powers — vertices are projector operators, edges are commutation — a Global Intensive Valuation assigns to each power an intensity in [0,1] and defines an Intensive State of Affairs consistent with the algebraic structure. The Basis Invariance and Factorization Invariance Theorems then imply that any experimental arrangement of a given degree of complexity contains the information of any other arrangement of the same or lower degree. A quantum individual is therefore defined as the minimum set of powers of complexity N tha

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the stated-but-unproved Basis Invariance and Factorization Invariance Theorems and on the existence of a consistent global intensive valuation; if those fail, the proposed definition of a quantum individual collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the definition is sound, quantum individuality becomes a derived, relational concept: an individual is a minimal generator of the state of affairs, and all powers in a degree are inter-derivable.
  • The received/alternative debate dissolves: since both sides start from the particle presupposition, the question 'individuals or non-individuals?' is replaced by 'which minimal power set generates the given degree of complexity?'
  • The account provides a non-contextual, intensive reading of quantum properties: projectors receive global values in [0,1], so the Kochen–Specker obstruction is bypassed for intensities rather than binaries.
  • Individuality is relativized to experimental arrangements in the same way space-time is relativized in relativity theory: objective but frame-dependent.
  • The paper's historical reinterpretation implies that the standard textual evidence for non-individual particles commits a category mistake: statements against the particle notion were mistaken for statements about the nature of particles.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the minimal-power-set definition is correct, a general strategy suggests itself: in any physical theory, define the individual as a generating set under the theory's equivalence relations rather than as a primitive object; this could be probed in statistical mechanics or quantum field theory.
  • Because the two invariance theorems are deferred, the account's viability can be checked by brute force in finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces: enumerate minimal generating sets and verify basis and factorization independence numerically.
  • The intensive valuation over projectors is conceptually close to unsharp observables and positive-operator-valued measures; linking the two would give the framework a concrete experimental language.
  • The frame-relativity of individuality resembles quantum reference frame formalisms; combining them might yield operational statements about which measurements reveal individual powers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper enters the quantum-individuality debate by arguing that the Received View (Krause-style non-individual particles) and the Alternative View (Dieks-style contextual, emergent particles) are not genuine opponents. Both, the authors claim, inherit an anti-realist, atomist methodology from Bohr and Dirac, one that presupposes the classical 'particle' without deriving it from the formalism. The paper then sketches the Logos Categorical Approach: a quantum individual is defined, relative to an experimental arrangement, as a set of powers (projectors) of a given complexity that can derive all powers and potentia in that degree or less. The account is presented as objective and invariant despite being frame-relative, resting on Global Intensive Valuations (GIVs) that are said to bypass Kochen-Specker contextuality, and on a Basis Invariance Theorem and a Factorization Invariance Theorem stated in Section 4. The final section defends a revisionary reading of Schrödinger as attacking the particle notion rather than defending non-individual particles.

Significance. If the positive account could be made precise, it would offer a genuinely novel alternative to the particle/non-particle dichotomy and would connect quantum individuality to operational invariance in an interesting way. The paper's critical diagnosis—that both mainstream camps share a common presupposition—is a valuable framing, and the authors are to be credited for making the constructive proposal explicit rather than leaving it as a metaphor. However, the constructive payoff is currently not self-contained: the central definitions are under-specified, and the two theorems that carry the weight of the proposal are deferred to the authors' earlier work. The paper would be significant if those gaps were filled, but in its present form the central claim is not verifiable from the text.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, Definition 4.7] The experimental arrangement EA is defined by a matrix with coefficients α, but the ISA Ψ only assigns values to projectors, i.e., to diagonal entries. The off-diagonal coefficients are therefore not fixed by Ψ, so the object EAN,i1...inΨ,B is under-specified. Since Theorem 4.9 and the derivation relation used in Definition 4.11 are about such arrangements, this is load-bearing. Please supply a rule that determines the off-diagonal coefficients, or explicitly show that they are irrelevant by defining equivalence on diagonal data alone.
  2. [§4, Theorems 4.9 and 4.10] These theorems are the only results that allow one experimental arrangement to be 'equivalent to' or 'contained in' another, and Definition 4.11 uses exactly that relation. They are stated without proof and deferred to the authors' earlier paper [31]; the manuscript does not define 'equivalent' or 'deduce' formally. This leaves the central constructive claim unverifiable in the present text. Please include precise statements with hypotheses (finite/infinite dimension, regularity of Ψ, definition of equivalence) and either proofs or a precise pointer to the exact theorems in [31].
  3. [§4, Definition 4.11] The prose preceding the definition says a quantum individual is the 'minimum set' of powers, but the formal definition drops 'minimum'. Neither 'derive' nor 'minimum set' is given a formal meaning, and no existence or uniqueness result is stated. As written, any sufficiently large set of powers might qualify, and minimality could fail. This is load-bearing because the quantum individual is the paper's positive proposal. Please give a formal definition and prove that the claimed minimal set exists and is unique up to the intended equivalence.
  4. [§4, Definitions 4.2–4.3] The existence of a Global Intensive Valuation satisfying additivity and normalization is stipulated, and the sentence claiming that this 'bypasses Kochen-Specker contextuality' is supported only by self-citations [27,29]. Since the objectivity of the account depends on the consistency of such valuations, the manuscript should either state the relevant theorem precisely or give a derivation sketch. Without this, the reader cannot judge whether the GIV is a consistent alternative to KS valuations or merely a different object.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Typos and slips: 'Borh' and 'Krasue' in §5, 'oximoron' in §5, 'Einstenian' in the Introduction. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [§4, Definitions 4.2–4.3] The term 'GIV' is first defined as any map to [0,1], then Definition 4.3 uses 'GIV Ψ' for an additive, normalized one. Consider renaming the latter 'consistent GIV' or 'ISA valuation' to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [§4, Definitions 4.5–4.8] It would help to state explicitly that the α coefficients in Definition 4.7 are not the potentia; only the diagonal coefficients are, as Definition 4.8 says. The notation EAN,i1...inΨ,B is unwieldy and could be simplified.
  4. [§5] The historical claim about Schrödinger is supported by selected quotations. Given that the Received View also claims Schrödinger's authority, a more extended engagement with alternative readings of these passages would strengthen the critique.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the constructive definition of a quantum individual is imported from the authors' own prior theorems, while the historical critique of RV/AV is independent.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4, opening paragraph (before Definition 4.1)]
    "As it has been demonstrated [27], referring to intensities instead of binary outcomes, it is possible to bypass Kochen-Specker contextuality restoring an invariant account of projection operators and thus a consistent global (intensive) valuation. Furthermore, following this line of research, it is possible to produce a definition of a quantum individual which, even though becomes relative to reference frames, is nonetheless both invariant and objective [26, 31]."

    The paper's central positive path—bypassing Kochen-Specker and then defining a quantum individual—is asserted by citing [27], [26] and [31], all works of the same research program. No proof or independent derivation of this possibility is given in the present manuscript. This is load-bearing because Definition 4.11's 'capable to derive' presupposes exactly those imported results. Without those self-citations, the constructive chain in this paper has no independent support.

  2. uniqueness imported from authors [Section 4, between Definitions 4.8 and 4.11 (Theorems 4.9 and 4.10)]
    "Assume that, in a Q-Lab, we want to change or modify an experimental setup by changing the number of screens and detectors. In this case, there are two important theorems (derived in [31]) that allow us to consider the relations between powers, intensities, experimental arrangements and quantum labs. ... Theorem 4.9 (Basis Invariance Theorem) Given a specific Q-Lab Ψ, all experimental arrangements of the same complexity, EA_N^Ψ, are equivalent independently of the basis. Theorem 4.10 (Factorization Invariance Theorem) The experiments performed within a EA_N^Ψ can also be performed with an expe"

    Theorems 4.9–4.10 supply the exact equivalence/containment relation that makes 'derive' and 'minimum set' in Definition 4.11 meaningful. They are not proved here; they are deferred to [31], by the same authors. Thus the definition of a quantum individual as a minimal set of powers 'capable to derive the totality of powers and potentia' is forced by the authors' own prior invariance claims rather than by an argument contained in this paper. This is an imported uniqueness/invariance result used to declare the paper's constructive choice justified.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Section 4, Definitions 4.2 and 4.3]
    "Definition 4.2 Global Intensive Valuation: A Global Intensive Valuation is a map from G(H) to the interval [0,1]. ... Definition 4.3 Intensive State of Affairs: ... An Intensive State of Affairs is a GIV Ψ : G(H)→[0,1] from the graph of powers G(H) such that Ψ(I) = 1 and Ψ(Σ_i P_i) = Σ_i Ψ(P_i) for any piecewise orthogonal operator {P_i}. The numbers Ψ(P)∈[0,1] are called intensities or potentia..."

    A countably additive, normalized map from projectors into [0,1] is exactly a quantum state. The claimed 'bypass' of Kochen-Specker is obtained by definition: Kochen-Specker forbids {0,1}-valued global assignments, while the GIV is defined to take all values in [0,1]. So the escape from contextuality is true by construction, not by a derived theorem. The subsequent vocabulary of 'powers' and 'potentia' renames the standard probability assignment rather than supplying an independent derivation.

full rationale

The paper's historical and methodological critique of the Received and Alternative views is largely self-contained: it is supported by external sources (Bohr, Dirac, Krause, Dieks, etc.) and can be assessed on its own merits. That part is not circular. The constructive part, however, is not self-contained. The existence of a global intensive valuation is built into the definition of the GIV, and the crucial Basis/Factorization Invariance Theorems are taken from the authors' own prior paper [31] without proof. The definition of a quantum individual (Definition 4.11) inherits its content from those self-citations. I also note a non-circular correctness concern: Definition 4.7's EA matrix includes off-diagonal coefficients α that are not fixed by the ISA Ψ, which makes the object EAN,Ψ,B under-specified; this affects whether Theorem 4.9 can do the required work, but it is not itself a reduction to the paper's inputs. Because no empirical predictions are fitted, there is no fitted-input circularity. The score reflects the partial circularity of the constructive account while acknowledging the independence of the historical critique.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The positive contribution rests on the authors' own earlier framework: definitions from [25], theorems from [31], and the KS-bypass claim from [27,29]. No numerical free parameters are fitted, but the conceptual machinery is largely self-supplied rather than independently justified.

assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Existence of Global Intensive Valuations satisfying additivity and normalization (Definition 4.3)
    Postulated to model intensities; no derivation from standard QM axioms, and the claim that it bypasses Kochen-Specker is asserted with citations to the authors' own work [27,29].
  • ad hoc to paper Basis Invariance Theorem and Factorization Invariance Theorem (Theorems 4.9 and 4.10)
    Taken as given from [31]; not proved or stated in full in this manuscript.
  • standard math Hilbert space formalism of QM: projectors, tensor products, commutation, Gleason-style measures
    Background mathematics used in the definitions of graph of powers, experimental arrangements, and ISAs.
  • domain assumption Methodological principle that 'the theory tells you what can be observed' and that concepts impose moments of unity
    Adopted from Einstein and Heisenberg as the normative methodology for the Logos Categorical Approach.
  • ad hoc to paper Logos Categorical definitions of power, potentia and experimental arrangement from [25]
    Core conceptual machinery is imported from the authors' own companion paper; its adequacy is presupposed.
invented entities (3)
  • power of action
    purpose: Replaces particle-based reference with intensive multi-screen effects (Definition 4.6)
    Defined within the framework; no falsifiable handle beyond standard QM predictions.
  • Intensive State of Affairs (ISA) and Global Intensive Valuation (GIV)
    purpose: Provides a global, supposedly non-contextual valuation claimed to bypass Kochen-Specker
    Introduced by the authors; the bypass claim is contested and not demonstrated in this paper.
  • quantum individual (Definition 4.11)
    purpose: New notion of individual relativized to a degree of complexity, derived via minimal sets of powers
    Defined through the authors' own concepts; no independent empirical or formal evidence in this manuscript.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Realist Approach to Quantum Individuality: Against the "Received" and "Alternative" Views." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DADDZGYU

@misc{pith2026250910680,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Realist Approach to Quantum Individuality: Against the "Received" and "Alternative" Views},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DADDZGYU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10680}
}
read the original abstract

In this work we address the contemporary debate about quantum individuality expressed as an opposition between those who, like D\'ecio Krause, defend the reference of the theory to "non-individual particles", and those like Dennis Dieks, who propose instead to preserve the notion of "classical particle" as commonly applied by contemporary physicists. We will argue that these viewpoints rather than truly opposed share a common methodology which has helped to reinforce the doctrine of classical concepts that was imposed by Bohr and Dirac within the "standard" formulation --which remains the orthodox physical account of the theory of quanta. We will also discuss a recently proposed relativist yet objective relational account of quantum individuality [25] which, going back to Einstein's methodological approach, opens the doors to a completely new, truly realist understanding of quantum individuality.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    Relational quantum entanglement beyond non-separable and contextual relativism

    de Ronde, C.&Massri, C., 2023, “Relational quantum entanglement beyond non-separable and contextual relativism”,Studies in History and Philosophy of Science,97, 68-78

    2023

  2. [29]

    The Logos Categorical Approach to Quantum Mechanics: I. Kochen- Specker Contextuality and Global Intensive Valuations

    de Ronde, C.&Massri, C., 2021, “The Logos Categorical Approach to Quantum Mechanics: I. Kochen- Specker Contextuality and Global Intensive Valuations.”,International Journal of Theoretical Physics,60, 429-456

    2021

  3. [1]

    The received view on quantum non-individuality: formal and metaphysical anal- ysis

    Arenhart, J.R.B., 2017, “The received view on quantum non-individuality: formal and metaphysical anal- ysis”,Synthese,194, 1323-1347

    2017

  4. [2]

    A no-individuals account of quantum mechanics

    Arenhart, J.R.B., 2023, “A no-individuals account of quantum mechanics”,Philosophical Transactions A, 381, 20220097

    2023

  5. [3]

    Arroyo, R., 2020,Discussions on physics, metaphysics and metametaphysics: Interpreting quantum me- chanics, PhD dissertation, Universidad Federal de Santa Catarina. 16

    2020

  6. [4]

    The Role of Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics

    Bacciagaluppi, G., “The Role of Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics”,The Stanford En- cyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2025 Edition), E.N. Zalta and U. Nodelman (Eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2025/entries/qm-decoherence/

    2025

  7. [5]

    Calculate but don’t shut up

    Baggott, J., 2021, “Calculate but don’t shut up”,Aeon, URL: https://aeon.co/essays/shut-up-and- calculate-does-a-disservice-to-quantum-mechanics

    2021

  8. [6]

    On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox

    Bell, J., 1964, “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox”,Physics Physique Fizika,1, 195-200

    1964

Show all 69 references
  1. [7]

    Bigaj, T., 2022,Identity and indiscernibility in quantum mechanics, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

    2022

  2. [8]

    Blackburn, S., 1996,The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford

    1996

  3. [9]

    Introductory survey

    Bohr, N., 1929 [1934], “Introductory survey” inAtomic Theory and the Description of Nature, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-24. Reprinted inNiels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 6: Foundations of Quantum Physics I (1926?1932), J. Kalckar, (Ed.), North-Holland, Amsterda...

    1929

  4. [10]

    On the notions of causality and complementarity

    Bohr, N., 1948, “On the notions of causality and complementarity”Dialectica,2, 312-319

    1948

  5. [11]

    Open or Closed? Dirac, Heisenberg, and the Relation between Classical and Quantum Mechanics

    Bokulich, A., 2004, “Open or Closed? Dirac, Heisenberg, and the Relation between Classical and Quantum Mechanics”,Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics,35, 377-396

    2004

  6. [12]

    Niels Bohr’s Generalization of Classical Mechanics

    Bokulich, A., 2005, “Niels Bohr’s Generalization of Classical Mechanics”,Foundations of Physics,35, 347-371

    2005

  7. [13]

    Bohr’s Correspondence Principle

    Bokulich, A.&Bokulich, P., 2020, “Bohr’s Correspondence Principle”,The Stan- ford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), E.N. Zalta (Ed.), URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/bohr-correspondence/

    2020

  8. [14]

    Neo-Pyrrhonism, Empiricism, and Scientific Activity

    Bueno, O., 2021, “Neo-Pyrrhonism, Empiricism, and Scientific Activity”,Veritas,66, e42184

    2021

  9. [15]

    Interpretations of quantum theory: A map of madness

    Cabello, A., 2017, “Interpretations of quantum theory: A map of madness”, inWhat is Quantum Infor- mation?, pp. 138-143, O. Lombardi, S. Fortin, F. Holik and C. López (Eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    2017

  10. [16]

    A Brief History of Quantum Mechanics - with Sean Carroll

    Carroll, S., 2020, “A Brief History of Quantum Mechanics - with Sean Carroll”,The Royal Institution, URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVmeOCJjOU

    2020

  11. [17]

    Early History of Bell’s Theorem

    Clauser, J.F., 2003, “Early History of Bell’s Theorem”, inCoherence and Quantum Optics VIII, N.P. Bigelow, J.H. Eberly, C.R. Stroud and I.A. Walmsley (Eds), Springer, Boston

    2003

  12. [18]

    1994,Ensaio sobre os Fundamentos da Lógica, Hucitec, Sao Paulo

    da Costa, N. 1994,Ensaio sobre os Fundamentos da Lógica, Hucitec, Sao Paulo

    1994

  13. [19]

    The Paraconsistent Logic of Quantum Superpositions

    da Costa, N.&de Ronde, C. 2013, “The Paraconsistent Logic of Quantum Superpositions”,Foundations of Physics,43, 845-858

    2013

  14. [20]

    The Return of Realism in the Logos Approach to Quantum Mechanics (Reply to Arroyo and Arenhart)

    de Ronde, C., 2025, “The Return of Realism in the Logos Approach to Quantum Mechanics (Reply to Arroyo and Arenhart)”,Foundations of Science, DOI:10.1007/s10699-025-09973-4

    2025 doi

  15. [21]

    On the Physical Untenability of the Orthodox Notion of Quantum State

    de Ronde, C., 2025, “On the Physical Untenability of the Orthodox Notion of Quantum State”, sent, (quant-ph:2505.23989)

    2025 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Quantum Logic in Historical and Philosophical Per- spective

    de Ronde, C., Domenech, G.&Freytes, H., 2018, “Quantum Logic in Historical and Philosophical Per- spective”,Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, URL: https://iep.utm.edu/qu-logic/

    2018

  17. [23]

    Krause and J

    de Ronde, C.&Fernández Mouján, R., 2025, ‘The Dilemma of Quantum Individuality Beyond Particle Metaphysics”, inIndividuals and Non-Individuals in Quantum Theory, D. Krause and J. Arenhart (Eds.), Synthese Library, Berlin, forthcoming

    2025

  18. [24]

    Everything is entangled in quantum mechanics: on the measures of quantum entanglement

    de Ronde, C., Fernández Mouján, R.&Massri, C., 2024, “Everything is entangled in quantum mechanics: on the measures of quantum entanglement.”,European Physics Journal Plus,139, 1039

    2024

  19. [25]

    On the Relative Nature of Quantum Individuals

    de Ronde, C., Fernández Mouján, R.&Massri, C., 2024, “On the Relative Nature of Quantum Individuals”, sent (quant-ph:2406.09452). 17

    2024 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Equivalence Relations in Quantum Theory: An Objective Account of Bases and Factorizations

    de Ronde, C., Fernández Mouján, R.&Massri, C., 2025, “Equivalence Relations in Quantum Theory: An Objective Account of Bases and Factorizations”,International Journal of Theoretical Physics,64, 39

    2025

  21. [27]

    Kochen-Specker Theorem, Physical Invariance and Quantum Individu- ality

    de Ronde, C.&Massri, C., 2016, “Kochen-Specker Theorem, Physical Invariance and Quantum Individu- ality”,Cadernos da História e Filosofia da Ciencia,2, 107-130

    2016

  22. [28]

    Against ‘Particles’ and ‘Collapses’ in Quantum Entanglement

    de Ronde, C.&Massri, C., 2020, “Against ‘Particles’ and ‘Collapses’ in Quantum Entanglement”, inA True Polymath: A Tribute to Francisco Antonio Doria, J.A. de Barros and D. Krause (Eds), College Publications, Rickmansworth

    2020

  23. [30]

    Against the Tyranny of Pure States in Quantum Theory

    de Ronde, C.&Massri, C., 2022, “Against the Tyranny of Pure States in Quantum Theory”,Foundations of Science,27, 27-41

    2022

  24. [32]

    Dicken, P., 2016,A Critical Introduction to Scientific Realism, Bloomsbury Academic, London

    2016

  25. [33]

    Dieks, D., 2020, ‘Identical quantum particles, entanglement and individuality”,Entropy,22, 134

    2020

  26. [34]

    Quantum individuality

    Dieks, D., 2023, “Quantum individuality”, inNon-Reflexive Logics, Non-Individuals, and the Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: Essays in Honour of the Philosophy of Décio Krause, Jonas R. B Arenhart y Raoni W. Arroyo (Eds.), Springer, Cham

    2023

  27. [35]

    Identical Particles in Quantum Mechanics: Against the Received View

    Dieks, D., 2025, “Identical Particles in Quantum Mechanics: Against the Received View”, inIndividuals and Non-Individuals in Quantum Theory, D. Krause and J. Arenhart (Eds.), Synthese Library, Berlin, forthcoming

    2025

  28. [36]

    How Classical Particles Emerge From the Quantum World

    Dieks, D.,&Lubberdink, A., 2011, “How Classical Particles Emerge From the Quantum World”,Founda- tions of Physics,41, 1051-1064

    2011

  29. [37]

    Identical quantum particles as distinguishable objects

    Dieks, D.,&Lubberdink, A., 2022, “Identical quantum particles as distinguishable objects”,Journal for General Philosophy of Science,53, 259-274

    2022

  30. [38]

    Dirac, P.A.M., 1974,The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 4th Edition, Oxford University Press, London

    1974

  31. [39]

    The Special and General Theory, Henry Holt&Company, New York

    Einstein, A., 1920,Relativity. The Special and General Theory, Henry Holt&Company, New York

    1920

  32. [40]

    Remarks concerning the essays brought together in this co-operative volume

    Einstein, A., 1949, “Remarks concerning the essays brought together in this co-operative volume” inAlbert Einstein. Philosopher-Scientist, P.A. Schlipp (Eds.), pp. 665-689, MJF Books, New York

    1949

  33. [41]

    Einstein, A., Schrödinger, E., Planck M.&Lorentz H.A., 1967,Letters on Wave Mechanics. K. Przibram (Ed.), Philosophical Library, New York

    1967

  34. [42]

    3), Addison- Wesley, Reading

    Feynman, R.P., Leighton, R.B&Matthew, S., 1963,The Feynman Lectures on Physics (Vol. 3), Addison- Wesley, Reading

    1963

  35. [43]

    Feynman, R.P., 1967,The Character of Physical Law, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Mas- sachusetts

    1967

  36. [44]

    2015,The Quantum Dissidents

    Freire Jr., O. 2015,The Quantum Dissidents. Rebuilding the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (1950- 1990), Springer, Berlin

    2015

  37. [45]

    French, S.&Krause, D., 2006,Identity in physics: A historical, philosophical, and formal analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford

    2006

  38. [46]

    Giere, R.N., 2006,Scientific Perspectivism, University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    2006

  39. [47]

    Entanglement and properties of composite quantum systems: A conceptual and mathematical analysis

    Ghirardi, G., Marinatto, L.&Weber, T., 2002, “Entanglement and properties of composite quantum systems: A conceptual and mathematical analysis”,Journal of Statistical Physics,108, 49–122. 18

    2002

  40. [48]

    Hacking, I., 1983,Representing and Intervening, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    1983

  41. [49]

    Heisenberg, W., 1971,Physics and Beyond, Harper & Row, New York

    1971

  42. [50]

    Development of Concepts in the History of Quantum Theory

    Heisenberg, W., 1973, “Development of Concepts in the History of Quantum Theory”, inThe Physicist’s Conception of Nature, pp. 264-275, J. Mehra (Ed.), Reidel, Dordrecht

    1973

  43. [51]

    Einstein’s Philosophy of Science

    Howard, D, 2010, “Einstein’s Philosophy of Science”,The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Sum- mer 2010 Edition), E.N. Zalta (Ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/einstein- philscience/

    2010

  44. [52]

    On the problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics

    Kochen, S.&Specker, E., 1967, “On the problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics”,Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics,17, 59-87

    1967

  45. [53]

    Krause, D., 1992, “On a quasi-set theory’,Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic,33, 402-411

    1992

  46. [54]

    On the controversy the Received View vs. the Alternative View

    Krause, D., 2025, “On the controversy the Received View vs. the Alternative View”, inIndividuals and Non- Individuals in Quantum Theory, D. Krause and J. Arenhart (Eds.), Synthese Library, Berlin, forthcoming

    2025

  47. [55]

    Individuality, quantum physics, and a metaphysics of non- individuals. The role of the formal

    Krause, D.,&Arenhart, J. R. B. (2016). “Individuality, quantum physics, and a metaphysics of non- individuals. The role of the formal”, in Guay, A.&Pradeu, T. (Eds.),Individuals across the sciences, 61-84, Oxford University Press, Oxford

    2016

  48. [56]

    Quantum non-individuality: Background concepts and possibili- ties

    Krause, D.,&Arenhart, J.R.B., 2018, “Quantum non-individuality: Background concepts and possibili- ties”, in Wuppuluri, S.&Doria, F.A. (Eds.),The Map and the Territory: Exploring the Foundations of Science, Thought and Reality, 281–306, Springer, Dordrecht

    2018

  49. [57]

    Identical particles in quantum mechanics: favouring the Received View

    Krause, D.&Arenhart, J.R.B., 2025, “Identical particles in quantum mechanics: favouring the Received View”, inIndividuals and Non-Individuals in Quantum Theory, D. Krause and J. Arenhart (Eds.), Synthese Library, Berlin, forthcoming

    2025

  50. [58]

    Quantum Theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Maudlin, T., 2019,Philosophy of Physics. Quantum Theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton

    2019

  51. [59]

    The Problem With Quantum Theory - Full Interview - Tim Maudlin

    Maudlin, T., 2019, “The Problem With Quantum Theory - Full Interview - Tim Maudlin”,The Institute of Art and Ideas, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3ckLqsL5M

    2019

  52. [60]

    Quantum Mechanics: Fixing the Shifty Split

    Mermin, D., 2012, “Quantum Mechanics: Fixing the Shifty Split”,Physics Today,65, 8-10

    2012

  53. [61]

    Discerning fermions

    Muller, F.A.,&Saunders, S., 2008, “Discerning fermions”.The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,53, 499-548

    2008

  54. [62]

    Discerning elementary particles

    Muller, F.A.,&Seevinck, M.P., 2009, “Discerning elementary particles”,Philosophy of science,76, 179-200

    2009

  55. [63]

    (Eds.), 2013,The Wave Function: Essays on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics, Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Ney, A.&Albert, D. (Eds.), 2013,The Wave Function: Essays on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics, Oxford University Press, Oxford

    2013

  56. [64]

    Are quantum particles objects?

    Saunders, S., 2006, “Are quantum particles objects?”,Analysis,66, 52-56

    2006

  57. [65]

    The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics

    Schrödinger, E., 1935, “The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics”,Naturwiss,23, 807-812. Translated to english inQuantum Theory and Measurement, J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek (Eds.), 1983, Princeton University Press, Princeton

    1935

  58. [66]

    What is an elementary particle?

    Schrödinger, E., 1950, “What is an elementary particle?”,Endeavor, VolIX, N35, July 1950

    1950

  59. [67]

    Schrödinger, E.,Nature and the Greeks, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014

    2014

  60. [68]

    Van Fraassen, B.C., 1991,Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View, Clarendon, Oxford

    1991

  61. [69]

    What Is a Particle?

    Wolchover, N., 2020, “What Is a Particle?”, https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-a-particle- 20201112/ 19

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.