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

Springer eBooks

Realism and Quantum Logic

R. I. G. Hughes

Published Jan 1, 1981• 3 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-1-4613-3228-2_5

Related papers

Quantum theory and the logic of anti-realism

Christopher Norris

Routledge eBooks•Nov 1, 2002•0 citations

Conclusion

Peter Gibbins

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.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Sep 25, 1987•0 citations

Quantum Logic and Meaning

Sebastian Horvat, Iulian D. Toader

Abstract This paper gives a formulation of quantum logic in the abstract algebraic setting laid out by Dunn and Hardegree (2001). On this basis, it provides a comparative analysis of viable quantum logical bivalent semantics and their classical counterparts, thereby showing that the truth-functional status of classical and quantum connectives is not as different as usually thought. Then it points out that bivalent semantics for quantum logic – compatible with realism about quantum mechanics – can be maintained, albeit at the price of truth-functionality. Finally, the paper critically addresses Geoffrey Hellman’s argument (1980) that this lack of truth-functionality entails a change of meaning between classical and quantum connectives.

arXiv:2304.08450•Journal of Philosophical Logic•Nov 11, 2025•2 citations

On quantum logic and quantum metaphysics

Badis Ydri, Badis Ydri

Institute of Physics eBooks•Oct 1, 2021•0 citations

Logic Realism Theory: Philosophical Foundations

James (JD) Longmire

Logic Realism Theory (LRT) proposes that the Three Fundamental Laws of Logic (3FLL)—Identity, Non-Contradiction, and Excluded Middle—are not merely rules of reasoning but ontological constraints constitutive of physical distinguishability. The core evidence is an asymmetry: we can conceive of 3FLL violations, yet physical reality never produces them. This asymmetry indicates that 3FLL constrain reality, not merely cognition. This paper develops the philosophical foundations of this claim. We argue that: (1) 3FLL have a dual character, functioning both epistemically and ontologically; (2) quantum mechanics emerges as the unique "interface" structure mediating between non-Boolean possibility and Boolean actuality; (3) this framework resolves longstanding interpretive puzzles while maintaining scientific realism. The result is a form of structural realism grounded in logical necessity rather than contingent physical law.

•Dec 1, 2025•0 citations

Quantum logic and physics

George Svetlichny

International Journal of Theoretical Physics•Sep 1, 1992•3 citations
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.
Abstract This paper gives a formulation of quantum logic in the abstract algebraic setting laid out by Dunn and Hardegree (2001). On this basis, it provides a comparative analysis of viable quantum logical bivalent semantics and their classical counterparts, thereby showing that the truth-functional status of classical and quantum connectives is not as different as usually thought. Then it points out that bivalent semantics for quantum logic – compatible with realism about quantum mechanics – can be maintained, albeit at the price of truth-functionality. Finally, the paper critically addresses Geoffrey Hellman’s argument (1980) that this lack of truth-functionality entails a change of meaning between classical and quantum connectives.
Logic Realism Theory (LRT) proposes that the Three Fundamental Laws of Logic (3FLL)—Identity, Non-Contradiction, and Excluded Middle—are not merely rules of reasoning but ontological constraints constitutive of physical distinguishability. The core evidence is an asymmetry: we can conceive of 3FLL violations, yet physical reality never produces them. This asymmetry indicates that 3FLL constrain reality, not merely cognition. This paper develops the philosophical foundations of this claim. We argue that: (1) 3FLL have a dual character, functioning both epistemically and ontologically; (2) quantum mechanics emerges as the unique "interface" structure mediating between non-Boolean possibility and Boolean actuality; (3) this framework resolves longstanding interpretive puzzles while maintaining scientific realism. The result is a form of structural realism grounded in logical necessity rather than contingent physical law.