Abstract This paper gives a formulation of quantum logic in the abstract algebraic setting laid out by Dunn and Hardegree (2001). On this basis, it provides a comparative analysis of viable quantum logical bivalent semantics and their classical counterparts, thereby showing that the truth-functional status of classical and quantum connectives is not as different as usually thought. Then it points out that bivalent semantics for quantum logic – compatible with realism about quantum mechanics – can be maintained, albeit at the price of truth-functionality. Finally, the paper critically addresses Geoffrey Hellman’s argument (1980) that this lack of truth-functionality entails a change of meaning between classical and quantum connectives.
Abstract This paper gives a formulation of quantum logic in the abstract algebraic setting laid out by Dunn and Hardegree (2001). On this basis, it provides a comparative analysis of viable quantum logical bivalent semantics and their classical counterparts, thereby showing that the truth-functional status of classical and quantum connectives is not as different as usually thought. Then it points out that bivalent semantics for quantum logic – compatible with realism about quantum mechanics – can be maintained, albeit at the price of truth-functionality. Finally, the paper critically addresses Geoffrey Hellman’s argument (1980) that this lack of truth-functionality entails a change of meaning between classical and quantum connectives.
The thesis investigates the possibility of a classical semantics for quantum propositional structures. A classical semantics is defined as a set of mappings each of which is (i) bivalent, i.e., the value 1 (true) or 0 (false) is assigned to each proposition, and (ii) truth-functional, i.e., the logical operations are preserved. In addition, this set must be "full", i.e., any pair of distinct propositions is assigned different values by some mapping in the set. When the propositions make assertions about the properties of classical or of quantum systems, the mappings should also be (iii) "state-induced", i.e., values assigned by the semantics should accord with values assigned by classical or by quantum mechanics. In classical propositional logic, (equivalence classes of) propositions form a Boolean algebra, and each semantic mapping assigns the value 1 to the members of a certain subset of the algebra, namely, an ultrafilter, and assigns 0 to the members of the dual ultraideal, where the union of these two subsets is the entire algebra. The propositional structures of classical mechanics are likewise Boolean algebras, so one can straightforwardly provide a classical semantics, which also satisfies (iii). However, quantum propositional structures are non-Boolean, so it is an open question whether a semantics satisfying (i), (ii) and (iii) can be provided. Von Neumann first proposed (1932) that the algebraic structures of the subspaces (or projectors) of Hilbert space be regarded as the pro-positional structures PQM of quantum mechanics. These structures have been formalized in two ways: as orthomodular lattices which have the binary operations "and", "or", defined among all elements, compatible [symbol omitted] and incompatible [symbol omitted]; and as partial-Boolean algebras which have the binary operations defined among only compatible elements. In the thesis, two basic senses in which these structures are non-Boolean are discriminated. And two notions of truth-functionality are distinguished: truth-functionality [symbols omitted] applicable to the PQM lattices; and truth-functionality [symbol omitted] applicable to both the lattices and partial-Boolean algebras. Then it is shown how the lattice definitions of "and", "or", among incompatibles rule out a bivalent, truth-functional [symbols omitted] semantics for any lattice containing incompatible, elements. In contrast, the Gleason and Kochen-Specker proofs of the impossibility of hidden-variables for quantum mechanics show the impossibility of a bivalent, truth-functional [symbol omitted] semantics for three-or-higher dimensional Hilbert space structures; and the presence of incompatible elements is necessary but is not sufficient to rule out such a semantics. As for (iii), each quantum state-induced expectation-function on a PQM truth-functionally assigns 1 and 0 values to the elements in a ultrafilter and dual ultraideal of PQM³ where, in general the union of an ultrafilter and its dual ultraideal is smaller than the entire structure. Thus it is argued that each expectation-function is the quantum analog of a classical semantic mapping, even though the domain where each expectation-function is bivalent and truth-functional is usually a non-Boolean substructure of PQM. The final portion of the thesis surveys proposals for the introduction of hidden variables into quantum mechanics, proofs of the impossibility of such hidden-variable proposals, and criticisms of these impossibility proofs. And arguments in favour of the partial-Boolean algebra, rather than the orthomodular lattice, formalization of the quantum propositional structures are reviewed.
We address the old question whether a logical understanding of Quantum Mechanics requires abandoning some of the principles of classical logic. Against Putnam and others (Among whom we may count or not E. W. Beth, depending on how we interpret some of his statements), our answer is a clear “no”. Philosophically, our argument is based on combining a formal semantic approach, in the spirit of E. W. Beth’s proposal of applying Tarski’s semantical methods to the analysis of physical theories, with an empirical–experimental approach to Logic, as advocated by both Beth and Putnam, but understood by us in the view of the operational- realistic tradition of Jauch and Piron, i.e. as an investigation of “the logic of yes–no experiments” (or “questions”). Technically, we use the recently-developed setting of Quantum Dynamic Logic (Baltag and Smets 2005, 2008) to make explicit the operational meaning of quantum-mechanical concepts in our formal semantics. Based on our recent results (Baltag and Smets 2005), we show that the correct interpretation of quantum-logical connectives is dynamical, rather than purely propositional. We conclude that there is no contradiction between classical logic and (our dynamic reinterpretation of) quantum logic. Moreover, we argue that the Dynamic-Logical perspective leads to a better and deeper understanding of the “non-classicality” of quantum behavior than any perspective based on static Propositional Logic.
Abstract Quantum logics are non-classical logics defined from the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. While they are conventionally used to model inferential processes in physics, their scope of application is potentially much broader. We argue that quantum logics can serve as a framework to model human cognition, as their semantics seem able to capture not only how people make inferences about quantum mechanics, but also how they reason in general. We begin by defining quantum logics from an algebraic perspective in a classical first-order setting. Next, we present findings from cognitive science that suggest these logics are apt to characterize human reasoning. We then consider how such a connection between quantum logics and cognition contributes to longstanding philosophical debates about the epistemological status of logic and the problem of adoption. Finally, we discuss how cognitive applications of quantum logics could advance our understanding of human psychology and even quantum foundations.
As it is known, neither classical logical conjunction “and” nor classical logical alternative “either…or” can replace “+” representing a linear superposition of two quantum states. Therefore, to provide a logical account of the quantum superposition, one must either reconsider the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics (making it fit for classical bivalent logic) or replace the standard logic with a deviant logic suitable for describing the superposition. In this paper, a supervaluation approach to the description of the quantum superposition is considered. In accordance with this approach, the indefinite propositions, which correspond to the superposition states, lack truth-values of any kind, even granting that their compounds (such as logical alternative “either…or”) can have truth-values. As an illustration, the supervaluationist account of the superposition of spin states is presented.
The book investigates the ontology and logic of quantum physics. The first part discusses the relationship of theory and observation and different views on the ontological status of scientific theories. It introduces the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and some of its interpretations and their compatibility with various ontological positions. In the second part, implications of quantum mechanics on classical logic, especially on the distributive law and bivalence, as discussed by Garrett Birkhoff & John von Neumann (1936) and Hilary Putnam (1968), and their counterarguments are reconstructed and discussed. It is concluded that classical logic is sufficient for dealing with quantum mechanical propositions.
The paper is the contribution to quantum toposophy focusing on the abstract orthomodular structures (following Dunn-Moss-Wang terminology). Early quantum toposophical approach to "abstract quantum logic" was proposed based on the topos of functors [E,Sets] where E is a so-called orthomodular preorder category – a modification of categorically rewritten orthomodular lattice (taking into account that like any lattice it will be a finite co-complete preorder category). In the paper another kind of categorical semantics of quantum logic is discussed which is based on the modification of the topos construction itself – so called quantos – which would be evaluated as a non-classical modification of topos with some extra structure allowing to take into consideration the peculiarity of negation in orthomodular quantum logic. The algebra of subobjects of quantos is not the Heyting algebra but an orthomodular lattice. Quantoses might be apprehended as an abstract reflection of Landsman's proposal of "Bohrification", i.e., the mathematical interpretation of Bohr's classical concepts by commutative C∗-algebras, which in turn are studied in their quantum habitat of noncommutative C∗-algebras – more fundamental structures than commutative C∗-algebras. The Bohrification suggests that topos-theoretic approach also should be modified. Since topos by its nature is an intuitionistic construction then Bohrification in abstract case should be transformed in an application of categorical structure based on an orthomodular lattice which is more general construction than Heyting algebra – orthomodular lattices are non-distributive while Heyting algebras are distributive ones. Toposes thus should be studied in their quantum habitat of "orthomodular" categories i.e. of quntoses. Also an interpretation of some well-known systems of orthomodular quantum logic in quantos of functors [E,QSets] is constructed where QSets is a quantos (not a topos) of quantum sets. The completeness of those systems in respect to the semantics proposed is proved.