The classical belief revision framework, as proposed by Alchourron, Gardenfors, and Makinson, involves the revision of a theory based on eight postulates. In this paper, we focus on the exploration of a revision theory grounded in quantum mechanics, referred to as the natural revision theory. There are two reasoning modes in quantum systems: static intuitionistic reasoning, which incorporates contextuality, and dynamic reasoning, which is achieved through projection measurement. We combine the advantages of two intuitionistic quantum logic frameworks, as proposed by D{ö}ring and Coecke, respectively. Our goal is to establish a truth-value assignment for intuitionistic quantum logic that not only aligns with the inherent characteristics of quantum mechanics but also supports truth-value reasoning. The natural revision theory is then investigated based on this approach. We introduce two types of revision operators that correspond to the two reasoning modes in quantum systems: static and dynamic revision. Furthermore, we highlight the distinctions between these two operators. Shifting away from classical revision paradigms, we consider the revision of consequence relations in intuitionistic quantum logic. We demonstrate how, within the natural revision theory framework, both revision operators collectively influence the consequence relations. Notably, the outcomes of revision process are impacted by the sequence in which these interweaved operators are deployed.
The classical belief revision framework, as proposed by Alchourron, Gardenfors, and Makinson, involves the revision of a theory based on eight postulates. In this paper, we focus on the exploration of a revision theory grounded in quantum mechanics, referred to as the natural revision theory. There are two reasoning modes in quantum systems: static intuitionistic reasoning, which incorporates contextuality, and dynamic reasoning, which is achieved through projection measurement. We combine the advantages of two intuitionistic quantum logic frameworks, as proposed by D{ö}ring and Coecke, respectively. Our goal is to establish a truth-value assignment for intuitionistic quantum logic that not only aligns with the inherent characteristics of quantum mechanics but also supports truth-value reasoning. The natural revision theory is then investigated based on this approach. We introduce two types of revision operators that correspond to the two reasoning modes in quantum systems: static and dynamic revision. Furthermore, we highlight the distinctions between these two operators. Shifting away from classical revision paradigms, we consider the revision of consequence relations in intuitionistic quantum logic. We demonstrate how, within the natural revision theory framework, both revision operators collectively influence the consequence relations. Notably, the outcomes of revision process are impacted by the sequence in which these interweaved operators are deployed.
This paper surveys some recent developments towards a dynamic quantum logic and outlines its explicite construction -- some analogies and contrasts with other logics of dynamics are indicated. Abstract: The development of ``(static) operational quantum logic" points out that classical boolean structures are too rigid to describe the actual and potential properties of quantum systems. On the other hand, an intuitionistic perspective on operational quantum logic, guides us in the direction of incorporating dynamics logically by reconsidering the primitive propositions required to describe the behavior of a quantum system, in particular in view of the emergent disjunctivity due to the non-determinism of quantum measurements. A further elaboration on "intuitionistic quantum logic" emerges into a "dynamic operational quantum logic", which allows us to express dynamic reasoning in the sense that we can capture how actual properties propagate, including their temporal causal structure, and provides a unified logical description of systems which evolve or which are submitted to measurements. This setting reveals that even static operational quantum logic bears a hidden dynamic ingredient in terms of what is called "the orthomodularity" of the lattice-structure. Focusing on the quantale semantics for dynamic operational quantum logic, we delineate some points of difference with the existing quantale semantics for (non)-commutative linear logic.
In order to solve the problem of which is the real logic of Quantum Mechanics (QM), we suggest to study the mutual relationships between the physical theory (as a whole, that is both its experimental part and its theoretical part), its mathematics and its logic. That results to be a more general problem than what is considered by traditional studies on Quantum Logic (QL). These studies focus attention on the problem of the relationship between the experimental part of the physical theory and only its mathematics, from which logic is then derived. The new approach, that we suggest, generalises the interpretation that one of us (A. D.) successfully tested on the foundations of classical physical theories. The foundations of a theory are interpreted in terms of two options on the kind of mathematics, either classical one or constructive one, and the kind of logic, either classical logic or intuitionistic logic. It is remarkable that each theory making use of intuitionistic logic – i. e. L. Carnot’s classical mechanics, S. Carnot’s thermodynamics, Lobacevskij’s non-Euclidean geometry is organised in order to solve an universal problem (expressed by a double negated sentence), rather than in an entirely deductive way; hence, a non-classical logic does not belong exclusively to QM. From an historical and foundational analysis about QM, we conclude that in QM it is the law of double negation and not modular law (introduced by Birkhoff and von Neumann without giving physical evidence to it) which fails, i. e. which represents the true difference between Classical Logic (CL) and QL. We have looked for previous works on QL supporting our suggestion; in the past Destouches-Fevrier (1948), Fine (1974), Bell-Hallett (1981), Gauthier (1983), Adelman-Corbett (1995) already defended this thesis on the relevance of double negation law for QL. Under this light, QL results to have the same logic of a classical theory organised in a problematic manner. Hence, QM has to be referred to intuitionistic logic, in the same way every theory which is developed around a fundamental problem, expressed by a double negated sentence, does. In particular, by following the founder of intuitionism, Brouwer, we reject the identification of intuitionistic logic with an entirely deductive system; rather, the logical system of QL, as a theory, is organised in such a way to put a crucial problem to be solved. In agreement with this kind of organisation, among the several QM formulations we choose Heisenberg’s formulation, which was ignored by previous authors on QL. This formulation is aimed to solve the problem of quantum measurement, that originates the uncertainty methodological principle. Moreover, it is remarkable that it makes use of an operational mathematics (discrete matrices only). We interpret its characteristic arguing about its principal problem through double negated sentences; it results to be a moving from arguments belonging to non-classical logic expressed by a double negated sentence to the recognition of a suitable mathematics for QM formulation. In sum, QL shows how it is possible to state the relationship between QM and mathematics. This point has been almost ignored by the most traditional approaches to QL, which rather drew it from an a priori mathematics of QM (commonly, Hilbert space). As a verification of our approach, we show that even both Lobachevskij’s geometry and S. Carnot’s thermodynamics argued in order to achieve mathematical formulas expressing the content of the basic double negated sentences of respective theory. In the same way the recent book on QM by T. F. Jordan formalised his matrix mechanics. 1. Logic in classical physics and in Quantum Mechanics An historical analysis of Quantum Mechanics (QM) shows that there were at the origin of the theory two distinct formulations: Matrix Mechanics (Heisenberg, 1925) and Wave Mechanics (Schroedinger, 1926). Although Dirac subsumed these two formulations in a comprehensive mathematical framework (Hilbert space), we think that the organisation of the principles is different in Matrix Mechanics from that in Wave Mechanics, and this difference implies different logics. So we think that in order to characterise the logic of QM it is necessary to distinguish between this two formulations. In Matrix Mechanics, Heisenberg’s basic idea was to explain atomic spectra not in terms of atomic orbits (as Old Quantum Theory tried to make), but only by means of the study of experimental data; i. e., frequencies and intensities of light both emitted and absorbed by matter. Through a
Within the many versions of the Copenhagen interpretation numerous hints can be found about how to reason about quantum mechanics. However, strict guidelines are often missing. The standard quantum logic is sometimes opted as providing such a guideline but, in itself, it is again puzzling due to the failure of the law of distributivity. In this paper I take an instrumentalist approach inspired by the Copenhagen interpretation towards the interpretation of propositions in a physical theory. Starting with so-called elementary propositions for a physical theory I introduce logical connectives in accordance with this approach and relate the thereby expanding set of propositions to mathematical objects within the theory in a consistent way. This is first done for classical mechanics and then for quantum mechanics. In both cases this approach leads to the development of intuitionistic logics rather than classical ones. It also follows that the obtained intuitionistic quantum logic is a proper generalization of the obtained intuitionist logic for classical mechanics. Finally, some hints are provided in how these logics are to be used in practical situations.
QBism interprets quantum theory as a normative discipline for an agent's probability assignments and their revision across possible experience. This paper develops a logical formalization of that picture. A well-formed core datum consists of an admissible prior space, a finite family of actual measurements, Born kernels, and update kernels. For each such datum, we introduce a guarded dynamic language for histories and posterior states and prove a global reduction theorem. We next consider effectively semialgebraic data over an effectively presented real closed field. For data in this class, we translate the fragment without dynamic operators into first-order formulas in the corresponding language of ordered rings, thereby reducing validity to first-order reasoning over real closed fields. Together, the reduction and first-order translation yield a sound and complete recursive calculus and a decision procedure for validity. Finally, assuming a symmetric informationally complete (SIC) reference measurement, we show that quantum theory in finite dimensions realizes the framework through SIC coordinates, POVMs, and quantum instruments. We also prove that the corresponding SIC image satisfies the standard qplex geometry conditions, namely the consistency bounds and the lower polar condition, and that under explicit coefficient field hypotheses the resulting quantum datum is effectively semialgebraic.
Research within the operational approach to the logical foundations of physics has recently pointed out a new perspective in which quantum logic can be viewed as an intuitionistic logic with an additional operator to capture its essential, i.e., non-distributive, properties. In this paper we will offer an introduction to this approach. We will focus further on why quantum logic has an inherent dynamic nature which is captured in the meaning of “orthomodularity” and on how it motivates physically the introduction of dynamic implication operators, each for which a deduction theorem holds with respect to a dynamic conjunction. As such we can offer a positive answer to the many who pondered about whether quantum logic should really be called a logic. Doubts to answer the question positively were in first instance due to the former lack of an implication connective which satisfies the deduction theorem within quantum logic.
The multiple valued logic of inexactness and approximation we proposed in the past as framework for scientific thought in general is in this paper considered as logic for quantum theory in particular. In this logic truth-values are viewed as degrees of error and a deduction is considered valid if the error in the conclusion can be minimized whenever the error in the premise is brought under control. Applications of this logic to quantum mechanics encompass notions from earlier (non-classical) formal-logical approaches (modal, intuitionistic and multi-valued) and enable rigorous formulations of ideas relating to uncertainty, to states of quantum mechanical systems and to the familiar Hilbert space presentation of quantum physics.