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.
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.
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.
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.
We address the old question whether a logical understanding of Quantum Mechanics requires abandoning some of the principles of classical logic. Against Putnam and others (Among whom we may count or not E. W. Beth, depending on how we interpret some of his statements), our answer is a clear “no”. Philosophically, our argument is based on combining a formal semantic approach, in the spirit of E. W. Beth’s proposal of applying Tarski’s semantical methods to the analysis of physical theories, with an empirical–experimental approach to Logic, as advocated by both Beth and Putnam, but understood by us in the view of the operational- realistic tradition of Jauch and Piron, i.e. as an investigation of “the logic of yes–no experiments” (or “questions”). Technically, we use the recently-developed setting of Quantum Dynamic Logic (Baltag and Smets 2005, 2008) to make explicit the operational meaning of quantum-mechanical concepts in our formal semantics. Based on our recent results (Baltag and Smets 2005), we show that the correct interpretation of quantum-logical connectives is dynamical, rather than purely propositional. We conclude that there is no contradiction between classical logic and (our dynamic reinterpretation of) quantum logic. Moreover, we argue that the Dynamic-Logical perspective leads to a better and deeper understanding of the “non-classicality” of quantum behavior than any perspective based on static Propositional 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
Since Birkhoff and von Neumann [2] a new area of logical investigation has grown up under the name of quantum logic. However it seems to me that many authors have been inclined to discuss algebraic semantics as such (mainly lattices of a certain kind) almost directly without presenting any axiomatic system, far from developing any proof theory of quantum logic. See, e.g., Gunson [9], Jauch [10], Varadarajan [15], Zeirler [16], etc. In this sense many works presented under the name of quantum logic are algebraic in essence rather than genuinely logical, though it is absurd to doubt the close relationship between algebraic and logical study on quantum mechanics. The main purpose of this paper is to alter this situation by presenting an axiomatization of quantum logic as natural and as elegant as possible, which further proof-theoretical study is to be based on. It is true that several axiomatizations of quantum logic are present now. Several authors have investigated the so-called material implication α → β ( = ¬α∨(α ∧ β)) very closely with due regard to its importance. See, e.g., Finch [5], Piziak [11], etc. Indeed material implication plays a predominant role in any axiomatization of a logic in Hilbert-style. Clark [4] has presented an axiomatization of quantum logic with negation ¬ and material implication → as primitive connectives. In this paper we do not follow this approach. First of all, this approach is greatly complicated because orthomodular lattices are only locally distributive.
Sentences Associated with a Quantum System and Their Truth Values In a sense this chapter is marginal to the content of this volume; the reader can skip it without prejudice to the comprehension of chapters to follow. Quantum logic is a discipline that branched off from the 1936 paper of Birkhoff and von Neumann and has the orthomodular-poset structures encountered in previous chapters as basic mathematical carriers: that is why we think it worthwhile to devote some pages to the subject. But the main interests quantum logic calls into play are in the territory of logicians and philosophers: that is why we (who are neither logicians nor philosophers) shall confine ourselves to a very simplified introduction to the subject. Roughly, the starting question is whether the propositions of a quantum system can be associated with, or can be interpreted as, sentences of a language (or propositional calculus) and which rules this language inherits from the ordered structure of propositions. In raising this question one has in mind the fact that when the physical system is classical its propositions form a Boolean algebra, and Boolean algebras are the algebraic models of the calculus of classical logic. Thus the question above can also be phrased as follows: when a Boolean algebra is relaxed into an orthomodular nondistributive lattice, which logic is it the model of? “Quantum logic” is the name that designates the answer, but there are several views about the content of this name. Here we sketch one approach to a quantum logic.