Philosophers call these particle-tags “haecceities”. The SEP has a good article on identity and individuality in quantum theory. From what I can tell, the parent comment is right except in that classical mechanics can be rephrased to not include particles as fundamental entities, and that quantum mechanics can be interpreted to include particles as fundamental entities (e.g. Bohm). Still, having particles be fundamental seems like a much clearer violation of Occam’s razor in the quantum case than in the classical case.
I didn’t want to come out and talk about haecceitistic properties, since that would have made me sound even weirder (and it is controversial whether there are such), and I was already presenting some arguments in a hostile environment. But I had such properties in mind when responding. Thanks for providing the SEP link.
Philosophers call these particle-tags “haecceities”. The SEP has a good article on identity and individuality in quantum theory. From what I can tell, the parent comment is right except in that classical mechanics can be rephrased to not include particles as fundamental entities, and that quantum mechanics can be interpreted to include particles as fundamental entities (e.g. Bohm). Still, having particles be fundamental seems like a much clearer violation of Occam’s razor in the quantum case than in the classical case.
I didn’t want to come out and talk about haecceitistic properties, since that would have made me sound even weirder (and it is controversial whether there are such), and I was already presenting some arguments in a hostile environment. But I had such properties in mind when responding. Thanks for providing the SEP link.