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

Is Logic Empirical in the Light of Dynamic Quantum Logic?

Nicolas Alzetta

Published Jan 1, 2021• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.2139/ssrn.3912007

Related papers

Is (quantum) logic empirical?

Martin Drieschner

Journal of Philosophical Logic•Jan 1, 1977•7 citations

Empirical logic and quantum mechanics

David J. Foulis, Charles H. Randall

Synthese•Dec 1, 1974•39 citations

Empirical Logic and Quantum Mechanics

David J. Foulis, Charles H. Randall

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1976•26 citations

Quantum logic as a dynamic logic

Alexandru Baltag, Sonja Smets

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.

Synthese•Oct 12, 2010•82 citations

Comparison of classical and quantum universes within the empirical logic approach

Martin Biehl

This work employs the empirical logic approach of D. Foulis and C. Randall to compare non-relativistic, conservative, non-compound physical systems (universes) in classical and quantum mechanics. We present definitions of test spaces, propositions, proposition logics, statistical states, observables, and dynamical systems. Then we try to identify their mathematical representatives for both, classical and quantum universes. Except for the case of the dynamical system, which is not defined for classical universes, the definitions prove to be general enough to apply to both cases. Necessary mathematical tools not generally known to physicists are also treated in a concise fashion. These include some basic theory of partially ordered sets (posets) and lattices, in particular boolean and orthomodular lattices.

•Jan 1, 2009•0 citations

A Pragmatic Interpretation of Quantum Logic

Claudio Garola

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.

arXiv:quant-ph/0507122•Jul 13, 2005•8 citations
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.
This work employs the empirical logic approach of D. Foulis and C. Randall to compare non-relativistic, conservative, non-compound physical systems (universes) in classical and quantum mechanics. We present definitions of test spaces, propositions, proposition logics, statistical states, observables, and dynamical systems. Then we try to identify their mathematical representatives for both, classical and quantum universes. Except for the case of the dynamical system, which is not defined for classical universes, the definitions prove to be general enough to apply to both cases. Necessary mathematical tools not generally known to physicists are also treated in a concise fashion. These include some basic theory of partially ordered sets (posets) and lattices, in particular boolean and orthomodular lattices.
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.