2016/09/17 by Newton C. A. da Costa, Newton da Costa, da Costa, Newton +2 · 9 citations
Arts and Humanities · Medicine · Physics and Astronomy · #Aesthetics #Biofield Effects and Biophysics #Classical mechanics #Epistemology #FOS: Physical sciences #History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph) #Identity (music) #Metaphysics #Philosophy #Philosophy and History of Science #Physics #Quantum Mechanics and Applications #Quantum Physics (quant-ph) #Quantum mechanics #Theoretical physics #physics.hist-ph #quant-ph
paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1609.05361
published in arXiv (Cornell University) (Cornell University) · welcome!
arxiv created 2016/09/17 · openalex publication_date 2016/09/17 · arxiv updated 2016/09/20 · openalex created_date 2016/09/30 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
We discuss the hypothesis that the debate about the interpretation of the orthodox formalism of quantum mechanics (QM) might have been misguided right from the start by a biased metaphysical interpretation of the formalism and its inner mathematical relations. In particular, we focus on the orthodox interpretation of the congruence relation, '=', which relates equivalent classes of different mathematical representations of a vector in Hilbert space, in terms of metaphysical identity. We will argue that this seemingly "common sense" interpretation, at the semantic level, has severe difficulties when considering the syntactic level of the theory.