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.
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.
The logic of approximation gives a precise mathematical formulation to the notion of approximate truth and to deductions based on it. We study properties of quantum propositions expressed in this logic, in connection to a modal accessibility predicate which induces a metric on the set of states of a mechanical system. We then relate the logic to some quantum logical calculi, and discuss possible applications to probability theory and to the Hilbert space formulation of quantum mechanics. Natural deductions in mathematical logic are concerned with expressions of the form Ft-$ (read: ‘I’ yields @‘), where @ is a formula of a certain formal language L and I is a set of formulae of L . Semantically, the expression Ft@ means: ‘if all formulae in the set F are true then $J is also true’. In this paper we deal with natural deductions applied to the natural sciences, in particular to physics. The problem is that in the context of scientific theories we cannot always speak about (absolute) truth: we have to take into account the uncertainties and errors arising in experiments and
The non-classical nature of quantum theory has led to a number of efforts to formalize the logic of statements whose universe of discourse is the subatomic (see, for example, [3], [6], [8], and [10]).It might be hoped that ideally the fruit of such efforts would be a formalism not totally divorced from the classical logic, but incorporating or incorporated in it in such a manner as to unify the logic of the micro-and the macro-worlds.Indeed, this has been the general direction taken by these efforts, including that which we principally examine and expand upon here.*Josef Jauch, [6], pp.67-89, developed a "propositional calculus of quantum mechanics".He objected to calling a system like his a "logic of quantum mechanics"; however, our use of 'logic' here is not, I think, the use to which Jauch objected.A logic, for our present purposes, is a mathematical formalism having a reasonable interpretation as a theory of deduction; its actual application as normative of argumentation in reality is a matter of empirical judgment.This seems close to the way Jauch wished to use "propositional calculus" but more general, allowing for extension to a quantification theory of quantum mechanics, for example.Although Jauch's presentation of a propositional calculus of quantum mechanics is mathematically interesting and suggestive, there are a number of problems connected with it.It is our purpose to engage some of these problems and to present a rigorously defined formalism intended to come close to doing the job intended by Jauch for his logic.The success or lack of success of this effort as related to actual application of this formalism in the foundations of quantum theory is, I think, a matter for the physicists to decide; the empirical judgment involved in this application is not in the scope of this paper.If a formalism is to have a reasonable interpretation as a theory of deduction, it seems clear that it must include a relation which, when it holds between two elements of the formalism, may be reasonably interpreted as expressing that one of the elements 'follows from' the other, in •The author wishes to thank Robert Piziak for advice and comments in the course of research for this paper.
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
This article employs a descriptive-analytical method with an algebraic and axiomatic approach to address quantum logic. Through several thought experiments, it is demonstrated that the distributive law for propositions does not hold in quantum mechanics. Therefore, the logic governing this domain of science is not classical logic. In fact, the algebra corresponding to the logic of quantum propositions is an orthomodular lattice, which is why the distributive law is not necessarily valid for such propositions. In quantum logic, various definitions are offered for the implication operator. Since none of these operators satisfy the deduction theorem, a suitable implication operator with this property must be defined. This objective is achieved by defining a unified quantum logic. By constructing a Lindenbaum-Tarski algebra for this unified quantum logic, it can be shown that it is indeed a quantum logic. Dishkant presented an embedding of quantum logic into the Br-modal logic system. This provides an appropriate semantics for quantum logic. A suitable model for this logic is the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space.
The topos approach to the formulation of physical theories includes a new form of quantum logic. We present this topos quantum logic, including some new results, and compare it to standard quantum logic, all with an eye to conceptual issues. In particular, we show that topos quantum logic is distributive, multi-valued, contextual and intuitionistic. It incorporates superposition without being based on linear structures, has a built-in form of coarse-graining which automatically avoids interpretational problems usually associated with the conjunction of propositions about incompatible physical quantities, and provides a material implication that is lacking from standard quantum logic. Importantly, topos quantum logic comes with a clear geometrical underpinning. The representation of pure states and truth-value assignments are discussed. It is briefly shown how mixed states fit into this approach.
The topos approach to the formulation of physical theories includes a new form of quantum logic. We present this topos quantum logic, including some new results, and compare it to standard quantum logic, all with an eye to conceptual issues. In particular, we show that topos quantum logic is distributive, multi-valued, contextual and intuitionistic. It incorporates superposition without being based on linear structures, has a built-in form of coarse-graining which automatically avoids interpretational problems usually associated with the conjunction of propositions about incompatible physical quantities, and provides a material implication that is lacking from standard quantum logic. Importantly, topos quantum logic comes with a clear geometrical underpinning. The representation of pure states and truth-value assignments are discussed. It is briefly shown how mixed states fit into this approach.