A New Approach to Quantum Logic

The idea of a 'logic of quantum mechanics' or quantum logic was originally suggested by Birkhoff and von Neumann in their pioneering paper [1936]. Since that time there has been much argument about whether, or in what sense, quantum 'logic' can be actually considered a true logic (see, e.g. Bell and Hallett [1982], Dummett [1976], Gardner [1971]) and, if so, how it is to be distinguished from classical logic. In this paper I put forward a simple and natural semantical framework for quantum logic which reveals its difference from classical logic in a strikingly intuitive way, viz. through the fact that quantum logic admits (suitably formulated versions of) the characteristic quantum-mechanical notions of superposition and incompatibility of attributes. That is, precisely the features that distinguish quantum from classical physics also serve, within this framework, to distinguish quantum from classical logic. Some light is shed on the question of whether quantum logic is a genuine logical system by introducing a natural entailment relation for quantum-logical formulas with the implication symbol. The novelty is that, although implication behaves as it should (i.e. the 'deduction theorem' holds), the order of introduction of premises is significant. The fact that a reasonable entailment relation can be formulated for quantum logic supports the view that it is a genuine logical system and not merely an algebraic formalism
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjps/37.1.83
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 46,206
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Precis of the Emperor's New Mind.Roger Penrose - 1990 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13 (4):643-705.
Losing Your Marbles in Wavefunction Collapse Theories.Rob Clifton & Bradley Monton - 1999 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (4):697 - 717.
Computability, Consciousness, and Algorithms.Robert Wilensky - 1990 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13 (4):690-691.
Selecting for the Con in Consciousness.Deborah Hodgkin & Alasdair I. Houston - 1990 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13 (4):668-669.
Is Mathematical Insight Algorithmic?Martin Davis - 1990 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13 (4):659-660.

View all 44 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Quantum Logic, Realism, and Value Definiteness.Allen Stairs - 1983 - Philosophy of Science 50 (4):578-602.
From Intuitionistic Logic to Dynamic Operational Quantum Logic.Sonja Smets - 2006 - Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 91 (1):257-275.
Are the Laws of Quantum Logic Laws of Nature?Peter Mittelstaedt - 2012 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 43 (2):215-222.
Quantum Logic and Quantum Reconstruction.Allen Stairs - 2015 - Foundations of Physics 45 (10):1351-1361.
Primacy of Quantum Logic in the Natural World.Cynthia Sue Larson - 2015 - Cosmos and History 11 (2):326-340.
The New Quantum Logic.Robert B. Griffiths - 2014 - Foundations of Physics 44 (6):610-640.
Quantum Logic as a Dynamic Logic.Alexandru Baltag & Sonja Smets - 2011 - Synthese 179 (2):285 - 306.
Von Neumann’s Concept of Quantum Logic and Quantum Probability.Miklós Rédei - 2001 - Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook 8:153-172.


Added to PP index

Total views
165 ( #48,911 of 2,285,691 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #251,846 of 2,285,691 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature