<div dir="ltr">El grupo de filosofía de las ciencias (física, química y biología) de la FCEyN tiene el agrado de invitar a las charlas de dos reconocidos filósofos de la física brasileros, Decio Krause y Osvaldo Pessoa, acerca de cuestiones relacionadas con la interpretación de la mecánica cuántica.<br>
El encuentro se realizará el miércoles 29 de Mayo a las 15 hs., en el Aula 5 del Pabellón 2.<br>Los abstracts se adjuntan al final de este mensaje.<br>Los esperamos.<br><br>Olimpia Lombardi<br> <br><br>Why (and how) to question identity in Quantum Mechanics?<br>
<br> <br><br>Décio Krause<br><br>Department of Philosophy<br><br>Federal University of Santa Catarina<br><br>Florianópolis, SC - Brazil<br><br><a href="http://www.cf.ufsc.br/~dkrause">www.cf.ufsc.br/~dkrause</a><br><br> <br>
<br>It is a fact that quantum mechanics (QM) can be developed within a mathematical framework involving the standard theory of identity (STI). It has been treated this way ever. But the implications of STI wouldn't go unnoticed by philosophers interested in foundations. The main consequence of STI is that every object is an individual, in the sense of being distinct from any "other" individual. This is a theorem of the underlying logic, mainly if we are dealing with finitely many objects, as physics seems to do. Hence, in particular, Leibniz Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles is a theorem, and cannot be questioned (under the hypothesis of consistency). But QM seems to present us situations where quanta cannot be distinguished in any way, as entangled systems seem to show. Before measurement, we cannot speak of the individuality of the involved objects. Thus, logic (that is, the "classical" underlying mathematical apparatus) forces us to assume that there are "logical" hidden variables of some kind, for if the differentiation of quanta cannot be done by physics, it is a result of the underlying logic. In my work I have trying to find a way to assume a metaphysics of "non-individuals", entities that defy STI, but that can be collected into amounts having a cardinal but not an associated ordinal (that is, there may be many of them, but they sometimes cannot be discerned in any way, counted, put in some order, etc.). The conclusion is that STI brings inconveniences for the foundational analysis of QM. What I propose is to build a QM within a different mathematical framework where STI doesn't hold, where quanta can be treated as legitimate indiscernible things, without the usual mathematical tricks of assuming permutational symmetries of a kind.<br>
<br> <br><br>Interpreting the Afshar Setup and other Experiments in Quantum Physics<br><br> <br><br>Osvaldo Pessoa Jr.<br><br>Depto. Filosofia – FFLCH –<br><br>Universidade de São Paulo<br><br><a href="mailto:opessoa@usp.br">opessoa@usp.br</a><br>
<br> <br><br>Interpretations of quantum theory may be classified according to an epistemological criterion (positivist or realist) and an ontological one (corpuscular, undulatory, dualist, or without ontology), besides an intentional-emotional aspect. We characterize five general groups of interpretations, and analyze how they explain certain basic experiments. Special emphasis will be given to the Afshar experiment, and the refinements it introduces to the complementarity interpretation.<br>
<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment</a><br> <br></div>