Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Alethia

Putnam on Quantum Theory and Three-Valued Logic Is It (Realistically) an Option?

Chris Norris

Published Jul 15, 2002• 2 citations
Publisher

Abstract

(2002). Putnam on Quantum Theory and Three-Valued Logic Is It (Realistically) an Option? Alethia: Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 39-50.
DOI
10.1558/aleth.v5i1.39

Related papers

Critique of Putnam's quantum logic

Guido Bacciagaluppi

International Journal of Theoretical Physics•Oct 1, 1993•20 citations

3. Meaning and bivalence in Putnam’s quantum logical system

Jan Philipp Dapprich, Annika Schuster

Peter Lang eBooks•Oct 13, 2016•0 citations

Can logic be quantum-relativized? Putnam, Dummett and the 'great quantum muddle'

Routledge eBooks•Nov 1, 2002•0 citations

Putnam on realism, reference and truth: The problem with quantum mechanics

Christopher Norris

In this essay, I offer a critical evaluation of Hilary Putnam's writings on epistemology and philosophy of science, in particular his engagement with interpretative problems in quantum mechanics. I trace the development of his thinking from the late 1960s when he adopted a strong causal-realist position on issues of meaning, reference, and truth, via the "internal realist" approach of his middle-period writings, to the various forms of pragmatist, naturalized, or "commonsense" epistemology proposed in his latest books. My contention is that Putnam's retreat from a full-fledged realist outlook has been prompted in large part by his belief that it cannot possibly be reconciled with the implications of quantum mechanics for our understanding of processes and events in the subatomic domain. However, I suggest, this response should be seen as premature given the range of as-yet unresolved problems with quantum mechanics on the orthodox (Copenhagen) interpretation and also the existence of an alternative account - David Bohm's hidden-variables theory - which perfectly matches the established predictive-observational results while providing a credible realist ontology. I also examine Putnam's case for adopting a nonstandard (three-valued) "quantum logic" in relation to the thinking of other philosophers - Michael Dummett among them - who have espoused a more global or doctrinaire version of anti-realism. I conclude that Putnam's early (causal-realist) position is by no means untenable in light of the various arguments that he now takes as counting decisively against it.

International Studies in the Philosophy of Science•Mar 1, 2001•0 citations

Putnam looks at quantum mechanics (again and again)

Christian Wüthrich

Hilary Putnam (1965, 2005) has argued that from a realist perspective, quantum mechanics stands in need of an interpretation. Ironically, this hypothesis may appear vulnerable against arguments drawing on Putnam's own work. Nancy Cartwright (2005) has urged that his 1962 essay on the meaning of theoretical terms suggests that quantum mechanics needs no interpretation and thus stands in tension with his claim of three years later. She furthermore contends that this conflict should be resolved in favour of the earlier work, as quantum mechanics, like all successful theories, does not need an interpretation. The first part of this essay deflates both of these objections. The second part addresses and evaluates Putnam's own assessments of the main interpretative options available in 1965 and 2005. Although we may disagree on some aspects, his pessimistic conclusion will come out largely unscathed, and, in fact, enhanced. I will close by briefly stating the historical relevance of this work.

arXiv:1406.5737•Jun 22, 2014•0 citations

Reichenbach's interpretation of quantum mechanics

Paul K. Feyerabend

In section 3 of his paper ‘Three-valued logic’, Hilary Putnam deals with Reichenbach's attempt to interpret quantum mechanics on the basis of three-valued logic, and he uses some arguments of his own in order to show that this attempt is ‘a move in the direction of simplifying the whole system of laws’ (171). I believe that the Reichenbach–Putnam procedure cannot be defended and that it leads to undesirable consequences. There are the reasons for my belief: THREE-VALUED LOGIC AND CONTACT-ACTION Putnam asserts (a) that ‘the laws of quantum mechanics … are logically incompatible with’ the principle of contact-action ‘if ordinary two-valued logic is used’; and (b) that ‘adopting a three-valued logic permits one to preserve both the laws of quantum mechanics and the principle that no causal signal travels with infinite speed’. Assuming for a moment that (a) and (b) give a correct statement of Reichenbach's position (which they do not – see section 3) and that (a) is true we can at once say that adopting the procedure suggested in (b) would violate one of the most fundamental principles of scientific methodology, namely, the principle to take refutations seriously. The statement that there is no velocity greater than the velocity of light is a well-corroborated statement of physics. If, as is asserted in (a), quantum mechanics implies the negation of that statement, we should consider it as refuted and look for a better theory. This is what has in fact happened.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Oct 29, 1981•1 citation
In this essay, I offer a critical evaluation of Hilary Putnam's writings on epistemology and philosophy of science, in particular his engagement with interpretative problems in quantum mechanics. I trace the development of his thinking from the late 1960s when he adopted a strong causal-realist position on issues of meaning, reference, and truth, via the "internal realist" approach of his middle-period writings, to the various forms of pragmatist, naturalized, or "commonsense" epistemology proposed in his latest books. My contention is that Putnam's retreat from a full-fledged realist outlook has been prompted in large part by his belief that it cannot possibly be reconciled with the implications of quantum mechanics for our understanding of processes and events in the subatomic domain. However, I suggest, this response should be seen as premature given the range of as-yet unresolved problems with quantum mechanics on the orthodox (Copenhagen) interpretation and also the existence of an alternative account - David Bohm's hidden-variables theory - which perfectly matches the established predictive-observational results while providing a credible realist ontology. I also examine Putnam's case for adopting a nonstandard (three-valued) "quantum logic" in relation to the thinking of other philosophers - Michael Dummett among them - who have espoused a more global or doctrinaire version of anti-realism. I conclude that Putnam's early (causal-realist) position is by no means untenable in light of the various arguments that he now takes as counting decisively against it.
Hilary Putnam (1965, 2005) has argued that from a realist perspective, quantum mechanics stands in need of an interpretation. Ironically, this hypothesis may appear vulnerable against arguments drawing on Putnam's own work. Nancy Cartwright (2005) has urged that his 1962 essay on the meaning of theoretical terms suggests that quantum mechanics needs no interpretation and thus stands in tension with his claim of three years later. She furthermore contends that this conflict should be resolved in favour of the earlier work, as quantum mechanics, like all successful theories, does not need an interpretation. The first part of this essay deflates both of these objections. The second part addresses and evaluates Putnam's own assessments of the main interpretative options available in 1965 and 2005. Although we may disagree on some aspects, his pessimistic conclusion will come out largely unscathed, and, in fact, enhanced. I will close by briefly stating the historical relevance of this work.
In section 3 of his paper ‘Three-valued logic’, Hilary Putnam deals with Reichenbach's attempt to interpret quantum mechanics on the basis of three-valued logic, and he uses some arguments of his own in order to show that this attempt is ‘a move in the direction of simplifying the whole system of laws’ (171). I believe that the Reichenbach–Putnam procedure cannot be defended and that it leads to undesirable consequences. There are the reasons for my belief: THREE-VALUED LOGIC AND CONTACT-ACTION Putnam asserts (a) that ‘the laws of quantum mechanics … are logically incompatible with’ the principle of contact-action ‘if ordinary two-valued logic is used’; and (b) that ‘adopting a three-valued logic permits one to preserve both the laws of quantum mechanics and the principle that no causal signal travels with infinite speed’. Assuming for a moment that (a) and (b) give a correct statement of Reichenbach's position (which they do not – see section 3) and that (a) is true we can at once say that adopting the procedure suggested in (b) would violate one of the most fundamental principles of scientific methodology, namely, the principle to take refutations seriously. The statement that there is no velocity greater than the velocity of light is a well-corroborated statement of physics. If, as is asserted in (a), quantum mechanics implies the negation of that statement, we should consider it as refuted and look for a better theory. This is what has in fact happened.