- Go over the arguments for why multiply connectedness leads to anyons leads to FQHE
- The FQHE is, in a way, way “simpler” to analyze than the thermodynamic limit, because in the thermodynamic limit you deal with 2 parameters that are connected in a complicated way: the temperature & the density of particles. You do not vary the density of particles when doing an experiment, you vary the temperature. But, the temperature is not the parameter you would vary in a sorites thingy, plus phase transitions don’t really happen at a temperature, they happen over it.
- The only way for the FQHE/ballspace example to look like a sorites paradox is to either
- Make some brigde between theory and observation, because there is a nonzero length at which FQHE happens
- OR QM weirdness at the boundary point, which could count as vagueness.
We compared infinite idealizations to Sorites style paradoxes, and found that they have less in common than we hoped, in a specific way. Namely, Sorites style paradoxes require two boundary points and require you to “be able to go over the boundary points”. Most infinite idealizations however don’t have that, because the boundary “point” is “at” infinity, and you can’t go there, much less go over it.
However, ballspace might work.
Could probably generalize this in the language that [[Strevens (2019) - The structure of asymptotic idealization]] uses about idealizations.