An Argument in Favour of Non-Classical Logic for Quantum Theory

Paul K. Feyerabend

R. Srinivasan, H. P. Raghunandan

A theoretical model of truly autonomic computing systems (ACS), with infinitely many constraints, is proposed. An argument similar to Turing's for the unsolvability of the halting problem, which is permitted in classical logic, shows that such systems cannot exist. Turing's argument fails in the recently proposed non-Aristotelian finitary logic (NAFL), which permits the existence of ACS. NAFL also justifies quantum superposition and entanglement, which are essential ingredients of quantum algorithms, and resolves the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox in favour of quantum mechanics and non-locality. NAFL requires that the autonomic manager (AM) must be conceptually and architecturally distinct from the managed element, in order for the ACS to exist as a non-self-referential entity. Such a scenario is possible if the AM uses quantum algorithms and is protected from all problems by (unbreakable) quantum encryption, while the managed element remains classical. NAFL supports such a link between autonomic and quantum computing, with the AM existing as a metamathematical entity. NAFL also allows quantum algorithms to access truly random elements and thereby supports non-standard models of quantum (hyper-) computation that permit infinite parallelism.

María Luisa Dalla Chiara

Patrick Suppes

The aim of this paper is to state the single most powerful argument for use of a non-classical logic in quantum mechanics. In outline the argument is the following. The working logic of a science is the logic of the events and propositions to which probabilities are assigned. A probability should be assigned to every element of the algebra of events. In the case of quantum mechanics probabilities may be assigned to events but not, without restriction, to the conjunction of two events. The conclusion is that the working logic of quantum mechanics is not classical. The nature of the logic that is appropriate for quantum mechanics is examined.

Sonja Smets

In the literature the work of C. Piron on OQL, “the operational quantum logic of the Geneva School”, has a few times been criticised. Those criticisms were often due to misunderstandings, as has already been pointed out in [19]. In this paper we follow the line of defense in favour of OQL by replying to the criticisms formulated some time ago in [4] and [17]. In order for the reader to follow our argumentation, we briefly analyze the basic conceptual machinery of OQL.

C. Piron