The Leibniz continuity condition, inconsistency and quantum dynamics (Q1368752)

This paper begins with discussion of Leibniz Principle of Continuity, paraphrased as the claim that ``all causal processes are continuous''. After some discussion the author proposes we understand Leibniz as proposing ``a natural (contingent) condition on the behaviour of physical processes, namely that for them to be causally well-behaved they should be continuous''. However while we might want to understand this as requiring that causal processes must be represented by functions which are \(C\), i.e. have continuous \(n\)th derivatives for any \(n\), dynamics does not appear to be so limited, ``quantum mechanics being a notable example''. This rest of the paper is devoted to suggesting how we might widen what we mean by continuous functions, beyond \(C\), by using ``controlled inconsistency''. The author considers the problem of ``instantaneous change'', for example where function \(f(t)\) of position is such that at \(t=0\), \(f(t)=0\) but for \(t\neq 0\), \(f(t)=t\). In such a situation ``At time \(t=0\) is it in motion or at rest? At time \(t=0\) it has not changed its position though for all \(t\neq 0\) it has.'' We might consider velocity as providing the answer, but the problem of \(v\) at time \(t=0\) is also problematic. It is suggested that traditionally we conclude that there is no velocity at \(t=0\) since the limits from the left and right at this point are not equal. And this is taken to imply that \(v\) is discontinuous, ``since it does not exist everywhere''. The author proposes that instead of this counterintuitive traditional view, we instead consider velocity to be equal to both the left and the right hand limit at this instant, so that in this example for \(t=0\), \(v(t)=0\) cm/sec and \(v(t)=1\) cm/sec. It is claimed that in this way we can retain \(f\) and \(v\) as dynamical functions, but we have ``contained'' the inconsistency by restricting it to this single dimension of phase space, i.e we are not drawn to ``extending the treatment to contradictory identifications of dimensionless numbers''. An analogy is drawn with geometry allowing us to understand this as an ``instantaneous cylindrification'' of velocities at \(t=0\). There is brief reference for logical implications to the work of Graham Priest, on paraconsistent logical methods. The paper ends with the author describing the quantum analysis of atomic energy levels as one example of causal but instantaneous change that might benefit from this analysis. Indeed it is claimed that all quantum processes with discrete spectrum will be candidates for this new analysis. Finally an appendix touches on some topological and logical issues, in particular noting a relation between this and intuitionist systems derived from the duality between closed and open sets. Thus we have here an analysis which uses paraconsistent methods to support an analysis of motion which appears to differ from Graham Priest's own paraconsistent view of motion as essentially contradictory. The paper is clear and well-written, with key references to his own and Priest's work.