David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 190 (15):3265-3286 (2013)
At the 1927 Como conference Bohr spoke the famous words “It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.” However, if the Copenhagen interpretation really adheres to this motto, why then is there this nagging feeling of conflict when comparing it with realist interpretations? Surely what one can say about nature should in a certain sense be interpretation independent. In this paper I take Bohr’s motto seriously and develop a quantum logic that avoids assuming any form of realism as much as possible. To illustrate the non-triviality of this motto, a similar result is first derived for classical mechanics. It turns out that the logic for classical mechanics is a special case of the quantum logic thus derived. Some hints are provided as to how these logics are to be used in practical situations and finally, I discuss how some realist interpretations relate to these logics
|Keywords||Quantum logic Intuitionistic logic Instrumentalism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
J. S. Bell (2004 ). On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox. In Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press 14--21.
Simon Kochen & E. P. Specker (1967). The Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 17:59--87.
David Bohm (1952). A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden’ Variables, I and II. Physical Review (85):166-193.
Alexandru Baltag & Sonja Smets (2011). Quantum Logic as a Dynamic Logic. Synthese 179 (2):285 - 306.
Garrett Birkhoff & John von Neumann (1937). The Logic of Quantum Mechanics. Journal of Symbolic Logic 2 (1):44-45.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
J. S. Bell (2004). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Valia Allori & Nino Zanghi (2008). On the Classical Limit of Quantum Mechanics. Foundations of Physics 10.1007/S10701-008-9259-4 39 (1):20-32.
Nicholas Maxwell (1976). Towards a Micro Realistic Version of Quantum Mechanics, Part I. Foundations of Physics 6 (3):275-292.
Nicholas Maxwell (1976). Towards a Micro Realistic Version of Quantum Mechanics, Part II. Foundations of Physics 6 (6):661-676.
Peter Kosso (2000). Quantum Mechanics and Realism. Foundations of Science 5 (1):47-60.
Nicholas Maxwell (1975). Does the Minimal Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Resolve the Measurement Problem? Methodology and Science 8:84-101.
Angelo Bassi (ed.) (2006). Quantum Mechanics: Are There Quantum Jumps? Trieste, Italy, 5 Spetember -2005 and on the Present Status of Quantum Mechanics Lošinj, Croatia 7-9 September 2005. [REVIEW] American Institute of Physics.
Michele Caponigro, Stefano Mancini & Vladimir I. Man'ko, A Probabilistic Approach to Quantum Mechanics Based on Tomograms.
Valia Allori & Nino Zanghi (2004). What is Bohmian Mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 43:1743-1755.
John T. Bruer (1982). The Classical Limit of Quantum Theory. Synthese 50 (2):167 - 212.
Robert C. Bishop (2005). Patching Physics and Chemistry Together. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):710-722.
Added to index2012-07-21
Total downloads86 ( #47,112 of 1,793,261 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #463,804 of 1,793,261 )
How can I increase my downloads?