The term proposition usually denotes in quantum mechanics (QM) an element of (standard) quantum logic (QL). Within the orthodox interpretation of QM the propositions of QL cannot be associated with sentences of a language stating properties of individual samples of a physical system, since properties are nonobjective in QM. This makes the interpretation of propositions problematical. The difficulty can be removed by adopting the objective interpretation of QM proposed by one of the authors (semantic realism, or SR, interpretation). In this case, a unified perspective can be adopted for QM and classical mechanics (CM), and a simple first order predicate calculus L(x) with Tarskian semantics can be constructed such that one can associate a physical proposition (i.e., a set of physical states) with every sentence of L(x). The set
Pf of all physical propositions is partially ordered and contains a subset
PTf of testable physical propositions whose order structure depends on the criteria of testability established by the physical theory. In particular,
PTf turns out to be a Boolean lattice in CM, while it can be identified with QL in QM. Hence the propositions of QL can be associated with sentences of L(x), or also with the sentences of a suitable quantum language
LTQ(x), and the structure of QL characterizes the notion of testability in QM. One can then show that the notion of quantum truth does not conflict with the classical notion of truth within this perspective. Furthermore, the interpretation of QL propounded here proves to be equivalent to a previous pragmatic interpretation worked out by one of the authors, and can be embodied within a more general perspective which considers states as first order predicates of a broader language with a Kripkean semantics.
As it is known, the set of all closed linear subspaces of a Hilbert space together with a binary relation over the set represents the logic of the quantum propositions. It is also known that the lattices of the closed linear subspaces on a Hilbert space of dimension 3 or greater do not have a prime filter, hence those lattices do not allow a valuation map. In contrast to that, for qubits it is easy to find prime filters in the Hilbert lattice. This begs the question: What assumption(s) related to the lattices of the closed linear subspaces should be added or altered to preclude the bivaluation map in the two-dimensional case? The presented paper offers the answer to this question.