Abstract Standard quantum logics are typically defined over the orthomodular lattice associated with Hilbert space, yet there is no consensus on how this structure should be interpreted logically or ontologically. This paper offers a unified perspective on these issues by combining an epistemological three-layer model for scientific theories with quantum set theory. We argue that quasi-set theory is best understood not as an alternative semantics for quantum logics, but as an ontological framework operating at a different epistemological level: the ontological one. From this standpoint, the distinctive non-classical features of quantum logic are explained by representational assumptions about identity and individuality, rather than by positing any direct revisions of the logical principles themselves.
Abstract Standard quantum logics are typically defined over the orthomodular lattice associated with Hilbert space, yet there is no consensus on how this structure should be interpreted logically or ontologically. This paper offers a unified perspective on these issues by combining an epistemological three-layer model for scientific theories with quantum set theory. We argue that quasi-set theory is best understood not as an alternative semantics for quantum logics, but as an ontological framework operating at a different epistemological level: the ontological one. From this standpoint, the distinctive non-classical features of quantum logic are explained by representational assumptions about identity and individuality, rather than by positing any direct revisions of the logical principles themselves.
Abstract Traditionally by ‘quantum logic’, one understands the study of the lattice of the subspace of Hilbert space. Here, ‘quantum logic’ is taken to be the underlying logic of quantum physics. Following Schrödinger’s idea that the standard concept of identity cannot be applied to quantum objects, a kind of ‘non-reflexive’ logic called Schrödinger logic is presented, in which the reflexive law of identity is taken not to apply. First order Schrödinger logics are presented, and extended to higher order logics and also to an intensional logic. Classical semantics is presented, and a weak completeness theorem is sketched. The last part of the chapter covers a logic of sortal predicates for which a quasi-set semantics is delineated. This completes the formal framework capable of accommodating quantum non-individuality and thus the initial understanding of Born, Heisenberg, and Schrödinger, as well as the second horn of the above metaphysical underdetermination, can be formally represented.
Quasi-set theory was proposed as a mathematical context to investigate collections of indistinguishable objects. After presenting an outline of this theory, we define an algebra that has most of the standard properties of an orthocomplete orthomodular lattice, which is the lattice of the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space. We call the mathematical structure so obtained I-lattice. After discussing, in a preliminary form, some aspects of such a structure, we indicate the next problem of axiomatizing the corresponding logic, that is, a logic which has I-lattices as its algebraic models. We suggest that the intuitions that the `logic of quantum mechanics' would be not classical logic (with its Boolean algebra), is consonant with the idea of considering indistinguishability right from the start, that is, as a primitive concept. In other words, indiscernibility seems to lead `directly' to I-lattices. In the first sections, we present the main motivations and a `classical' situation which mirrors that one we focus on the last part of the paper. This paper is our first study of the algebraic structure of indiscernibility within quasi-set theory.
In the non-reflexive formulation of quantum physics, attention is given to a metaphysical view of quantum objects (q-objects) as non-individuals, characterised as entities to which the standard notion of identity lacks sense. The reference to the nature of q-objects is usually omitted in other interpretations and the most we can find is some vague reference to “to each [quantum] system we associate a Hilbert space”, and nothing more is said about them; we need to infer from the theory their characteristics, and it gives us several alternatives. One of them, to be justified here in broad aspects, is the non-individual view. It is important to enlighten that we are not trying to just find a way to deal with quantum entities but to defend a possible ontology of non-individuals, which can be applied also to ‘particles’ arising from quantum fields. Our account is based on two assumptions: (i) the ‘classical theory of identity’ does not apply to q-objects, and (ii) their non-individuality must be attributed from the start, that is, as a primitive notion and not ‘made a posteriori’ say by assuming symmetry principles. The underlying logic is called non-reflexive because the reflexive law of identity ∀x(x=x) is supposed not to hold for q-objects. Since all the details demand a lot of space, here we only sketch and justify our view. The references provide a more detailed account.
Based on a clear ontology of material individuals, we analyze in detail the factual semantics of quantum theory, and argue that the basic mathematical formalism of quantum theory is just okay with (a certain form of ) realism and that it is perfectly applicable to quantum gravity. This is basically a process about 'cleansing' the formalism from semantic assumptions and physical referents that it doesn't really need (we use the term 'semantics' in the sense of the factual semantics of a physical theory, and not in the sense of model theory of abstract mathematics or logic). We base our study on the usual non-Boolean lattice of projectors in a Hilbert space and probability measures on it, to which we give a careful physical interpretation using the mentioned tools in order to avoid the usual problems posed by this task. At the end, we study a possible connection with the theory of quantum duration and time proposed in [arXiv:2012.03994, arXiv:2107.06693], for which this paper serves as a philosophical basis, and argue for our view that quantum gravity may show that what we perceive as change in the classical world was just (an ontologically fundamental) quantum collapse all along.
In this article we try to justify a way of looking for an alternative approach to quantum mechanics based on a non-classical logic. The main motivation is both to accommodate a metaphysical view according to which quantum objects are non-individuals and to introduce, so to say, these objects within the formalism, for as we know, the usual formalism treats of states of quantum systems and not (directly) of quantum systems properly speaking. We consider two specific questions related to quantum theory, namely, entanglement and the indiscernibility of quanta. Our way of looking to these concepts motivate us to construct a metaphysical view according to which quantum objects do not present identity criterion (they are ‘non-individuals’), and then we try to construct a quantum theory based on such a view, which is grounded on a non-classical logic, termed non-reflexive. From the formal point of view, the main motivation comes from the fact that in using classical logic and classical set theory (such as ZFC), we are necessarily committed to individuals, and non-individuals can be considered only by assuming ‘strong’ symmetry principles, which mask the basic idea involving non-individuality. In the core of the article, due to questions of space, only the main philosophical arguments are presented, but in two appendixes we outline, firstly, quasi-set theory, the non-reflexive mathematical framework that sustain our view, and a bottom-top construction of a quantum mechanics based on quasi-set theory.
Abstract Quantum logics are non-classical logics defined from the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. While they are conventionally used to model inferential processes in physics, their scope of application is potentially much broader. We argue that quantum logics can serve as a framework to model human cognition, as their semantics seem able to capture not only how people make inferences about quantum mechanics, but also how they reason in general. We begin by defining quantum logics from an algebraic perspective in a classical first-order setting. Next, we present findings from cognitive science that suggest these logics are apt to characterize human reasoning. We then consider how such a connection between quantum logics and cognition contributes to longstanding philosophical debates about the epistemological status of logic and the problem of adoption. Finally, we discuss how cognitive applications of quantum logics could advance our understanding of human psychology and even quantum foundations.