Journal of Philosophical Logic 6 (1):463 - 472 (1977)
|Abstract||Compound propositions which can successfully be defended in a quantumdialogue independent of the elementary propositions contained in it, must have this property also independent of the mutual elementary commensur-abilities. On the other hand, formal commensurabilities must be taken into account. Therefore, for propositions which can be proved by P, irrespective of both the elementary propositions and of the elementary commensur-abilities, there exists a formal strategy of success. The totality of propositions with a formal strategy of success in a quantum dialogue form the effective quantum logic. The propositions of the effective quantum logic can be derived from a calculus Q eff which is — on the other hand — equivalent to a lattice L qi.Propositions about measuring results are above all time dependent propositions A(S;t). In a dialogue, different partial propositions will have in general different time values. If one can (accidentally) win a material dialogue, this dialogue can be related to a single time value. For the propositions of the effective quantum logic there exist formal strategies of success, independent of the elementary propositions contained in it. All partial propositions appearing in the dialogue are formally commensurable. Therefore the propositions of effective quantum logic which can be proved by formal dialogues can always be related to a single time. They present a description of the system S considered in which all partial propositions can be related jointly to the state of S.Therefore in the effective quantum logic we have — in the limit of equal time values — a situation which corresponds conceptually to the description of the system (S; ψ) in Hilbert space. Consequently, one would expect that also the lattice L qi — except from the tertium non datur 8 — agrees with the lattice L q of subspaces of Hilbert space. It has been shown that these lattices are in fact isomorphic|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Patrick Suppes (1966). The Probabilistic Argument for a Non-Classical Logic of Quantum Mechanics. Philosophy of Science 33 (1/2):14-21.
Itamar Pitowsky (1982). Substitution and Truth in Quantum Logic. Philosophy of Science 49 (3):380-401.
Peter Gibbins (1987). Particles and Paradoxes: The Limits of Quantum Logic. Cambridge University Press.
Bob Coecke (2002). Disjunctive Quantum Logic in Dynamic Perspective. Studia Logica 71 (1):47 - 56.
Michael R. Gardner (1971). Is Quantum Logic Really Logic? Philosophy of Science 38 (4):508-529.
E. -W. Stachow (1976). Completeness of Quantum Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 5 (2):237 - 280.
P. Mittelstaedt & E. -W. Stachow (1978). The Principle of Excluded Middle in Quantum Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 7 (1):181 - 208.
Peter Mittelstaedt (1978). The Metalogic of Quantum Logic. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1978:249 - 256.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #107,400 of 722,873 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?