Quantum logic is the logic of the high-level language in which we describe what is true and false of quantum systems. I use the term ‘highlevel’ in its computational sense. The language whose logic quantum logic is, is inexpressive. It has no machinery for describing probabilities, only truths and falsehoods and perhaps whatever is in between. Quantum logic conceals from its user the underlying details of the formalism of quantum mechanics, and the details (whatever they may be) of the underlying ‘machine’, the physical world. Quantum logic encourages a top-down view of the quantum world. Quantum mechanics, as done by the practising physicist, is bottom-up. The program of feeding back quantum logic into our metalevel discussion of realism fails. Quantum logic does not licence quantummechanical realism. It cannot override or rewrite the bottom-up view. The program itself is odd in that quantum logic is most naturally thought of as expressing quantum-mechanical antirealism, just as quantum mechanics itself is most naturally interpreted antirealistically. Thus quantum logic is consonant with nonlocality, in the sense that it does not allow one to derive the Bell inequalities. The conditional in quantum logic nicely expresses the effect of ideal measurements on quantum systems.
Quantum logic is the logic of the high-level language in which we describe what is true and false of quantum systems. I use the term ‘highlevel’ in its computational sense. The language whose logic quantum logic is, is inexpressive. It has no machinery for describing probabilities, only truths and falsehoods and perhaps whatever is in between. Quantum logic conceals from its user the underlying details of the formalism of quantum mechanics, and the details (whatever they may be) of the underlying ‘machine’, the physical world. Quantum logic encourages a top-down view of the quantum world. Quantum mechanics, as done by the practising physicist, is bottom-up. The program of feeding back quantum logic into our metalevel discussion of realism fails. Quantum logic does not licence quantummechanical realism. It cannot override or rewrite the bottom-up view. The program itself is odd in that quantum logic is most naturally thought of as expressing quantum-mechanical antirealism, just as quantum mechanics itself is most naturally interpreted antirealistically. Thus quantum logic is consonant with nonlocality, in the sense that it does not allow one to derive the Bell inequalities. The conditional in quantum logic nicely expresses the effect of ideal measurements on quantum systems.
What do we expect of a quantum logical interpretation of quantum mechanics worthy of the name? In what sense should it resolve the paradoxes? What scope should it have? Should quantum logic, if it is successful in the micro world, replace classical logic in the macro world and in mathematics? We distinguish between two kinds of quantum logical interpretations of quantum mechanics. An example of the first kind, the activist kind, will do much more than simply rewrite the assertions that quantum mechanics makes about the quantum world in an unfamiliar notation - in the elementary language of quantum mechanics. It will offer a solution to the major puzzles of quantum mechanics. It will show that the paradoxes of quantum mechanics can be resolved if we do away with classical logic and replace it with quantum logic, at least in our descriptions of quantum phenomena. It may defend a form of quantum-mechanical realism, a sort of quantum logical particle view of quantum systems, protecting it from the paradoxes that classical logic would impose on it. The second kind of quantum logical interpretation, the passive or quietist kind, is less ambitious. A quietist interpretation offers a solution to the paradoxes only in the following sense. It will assert that quantum mechanics, when it describes quantum phenomena in the elementary language, need not generate paradox, that the so-called paradoxes are not even formulable in quantum logic.
Why should anyone think that what is so deeply puzzling about the quantum world is really a matter of logic? Why should anyone think that studying the logic of quantum mechanics should be a route to a proper understanding of quantum mechanics? There is a tradition in the philosophy of quantum mechanics, a tradition stronger among philosophical commentators than among physicists, which sees the subject as the business of understanding quantum mechanical language and the way that language relates to the world. It is an idea more strongly held by philosophers – it comes much more naturally to them – because the analytic tradition, in which most Anglo-American philosophers of science are raised, is generally much exercised about words and how they hook on to things. The analytic tradition in the philosophy of quantum mechanics is not unreasonable. Everyone admits that we cannot picture the microphysical world, that a graphic or iconic representation of quantum systems is impossible. Therefore understanding quantum mechanics must be a matter of understanding the logic of the words and the mathematics of quantum mechanics. If this seems implausible, it is because of an ambiguity in our use of the verb ‘to understand’. We understand the physical world, and we understand physics. But physics is not the physical world. It is something of an entirely different sort, a human product, a way of representing the world.
Scholars have wondered for a long time whether quantum mechanics (QM) subtends a quantum concept of truth which originates quantum logic (QL) and is radically different from the classical (Tarskian) concept of truth. We show in this paper that QL can be interpreted as a pragmatic language of pragmatically decidable assertive formulas, which formalize statements about physical systems that are empirically justified or unjustified in the framework of QM. According to this interpretation, QL formalizes properties of the metalinguistic concept of empirical justification within QM rather than properties of a quantum concept of truth. This conclusion agrees with a general integrationist perspective, according to which nonstandard logics can be interpreted as theories of metalinguistic concepts different from truth, avoiding competition with classical notions and preserving the globality of logic. By the way, some elucidations of the standard concept of quantum truth are also obtained.
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.
On the Limits of “Undecidability”: Quantum Physics, Deconstruction, and Anti-realism Christopher Norris (bio) I Philosophers of science have responded in various ways to the conceptual and interpretative problems thrown up by quantum mechanics. These problems emerged a century ago from Planck’s researches into black-body radiation and have scarcely been resolved—rather, if anything, deepened and complicated—by the intensive debate that has surrounded them since that time.1 For some theorists, the resultant dilemmas (of observer “interference,” wave/particle dualism, quantum superposition, nonlocal causality, superluminal [faster-than-light] propagation, etc.) are such as to entail drastic revisions to our very idea of the physical world as existing and exerting its causal powers quite apart from our current best theories or investigative methods.2 For others again, quantum mechanics just is the best theory currently available, whatever the problems that it happens to create for our normal habits of logical thought or consistent reasoning on the evidence. Thus logic itself may have to be revised—right down to putative “laws of thought” such as noncontradiction and excluded middle—if these turn out to conflict with the results of quantum-mechanical theory or experiment.3 This is the view taken by Hilary Putnam in his writings on quantum logic and also by others, von Neumann among them, for whom the working rule in any such trade-off is to keep the physics as simple as possible even if the result is to complicate logic by introducing values other than those of determinate (bivalent) truth or falsehood.4 Very often it consorts with the argument that if quantum mechanics is right—at any rate on the standard Copenhagen interpretation—then we had best give up any hope of retaining a “classical” Einsteinian ontology, that is to say, a Lorentz-invariant account of space-time coordinates where the speed of light is the limiting value for assignments of position, velocity, and causal propagation.5 Hence Einstein’s famous series of debates with Niels Bohr when he devised a whole range of increasingly elaborate thought-experiments designed to prove that the quantum-mechnical description of reality had to be in some way “incomplete,” or not to have reckoned with some crucial factor that would bring it into line with logical reasoning and a causal-realist ontology. For on Einstein’s view there was simply no room in science for a theory—such as Bohr’s—that involved either the suspension of classical truth/falsehood [End Page 407] values or the idea of some “spooky action-at-a-distance” which contravened both commonsense realism and the requirements of Special Relativity.6 However it is Bohr who is generally thought to have carried the day in these debates. In which case—so it is argued—we are left with a choice between three possible “solutions.” These are (1) the hypothesis that quantum mechanics is “incomplete” or open to an alternative (“hidden-variables”) interpretation;7 (2) the adoption of an alternative (many-valued or non-bivalent) quantum logic that effectively conjures such problems away;8 or (3) the conclusion that realism may have to be abandoned in favour of some radically different ontology or worldview which counts this a price worth paying in order to conserve the predictive power of the standard quantum formalisms.9 On option (3) there is a further choice of interpretative views according to the theorist’s preferred choice between the various models (or possible-world scenarios) currently on offer. Thus the model may be one that embraces nonlocal simultaneous particle interaction, or which gives up space-time covariance (relative to the speed of light) as required by Einstein’s Special Theory. Or again it may be one that somehow envisions—strangest of all—the splitting-off of multiple coexistent but non-interacting “worlds” whenever the wave-packet collapses or whenever an act of measurement is performed upon any such quantum-system whose properties must be thought of as strictly indeterminate until that moment.10 For, according to its partisans, this theory is the most economical—i.e., involves least conflict with the standard quantum formalisms—despite its baroque proliferation of alternative worlds and its well-nigh unthinkable implications when applied...
In concluding their major survey, “Quantum Logics,” Greechie and Gudder (1975) listed four outstanding directions for future research, the last of which was, “Explain the meaning of the word ‘logic’ in the title of this paper.” Broadly speaking, there are two radically different points of view on this. There is the view that, taken strictly, ‘logic’ is a misnomer: quantum logic studies certain algebraic structures naturally arising from the formal, apparatus of quantum theory, structures which may afford insights into quantum physics, on a number of levels, but which do not in any way involve giving up or replacing classical logical laws. (Cf., e.g., Jauch (1968, p. 77).) In contrast, there is the view that the non-Boolean structures arising from the Hilbert space formalism should be taken as giving rise to a genuine non-classical logic, in conflict with classical logic, but appropriate to the description of quantum mechanical reality.