Modal interpretations take quantum mechanics as a theory which assigns at all times definite values to magnitudes of quantum systems. In the case of single systems, modal interpretations manage to do so without falling prey to the Kochen and Specker no-go theorem, because they assign values only to a limited set of magnitudes. In this paper I present two further no-go theorems which prove that two modal interpretations become nevertheless problematic when applied to more than one system. The first (...) theorem proves that the modal interpretation proposed by Kochen and by Dieks cannot correlate the values simultaneously assigned to three systems. The second and new theorem proves that the atomic modal interpretation proposed by Bacciagaluppi and Dickson and by Dieks cannot correlate the values simultaneously and sequentially assigned to two systems if one assumes that these correlations are uniquely related to the dynamics of the state of the systems. (shrink)

The CMI Millennium “P vs NP Problem” can be resolved e.g. if one shows at least one counterexample to the "P = NP" conjecture. A certain class of problems being such counterexamples will be formulated. This implies the rejection of the hypothesis that "P = NP" for any conditions satisfying the formulation of the problem. Thus, the solution "P is different from NP" of the problem in general is proved. The class of counterexamples can be interpreted as any quantum superposition (...) of any finite set of quantum states. The Kochen-Specker theorem is involved. Any fundamentally random choice among a finite set of alternatives belong to "NP" but not to "P". The conjecture that the set complement of "P" to "NP" can be described by that kind of choice exhaustively is formulated. (shrink)

A decade ago, Isham and Butterfield proposed a topos-theoretic approach to quantum mechanics, which meanwhile has been extended by Döring and Isham so as to provide a new mathematical foundation for all of physics. Last year, three of the present authors redeveloped and refined these ideas by combining the C*-algebraic approach to quantum theory with the so-called internal language of topos theory (Heunen et al. in arXiv:0709.4364). The goal of the present paper is to illustrate our abstract setup through the (...) concrete example of the C*-algebra M n (ℂ) of complex n×n matrices. This leads to an explicit expression for the pointfree quantum phase space Σ n and the associated logical structure and Gelfand transform of an n-level system. We also determine the pertinent non-probabilisitic state-proposition pairing (or valuation) and give a very natural topos-theoretic reformulation of the Kochen–Specker Theorem.In our approach, the nondistributive lattice ℘(M n (ℂ)) of projections in M n (ℂ) (which forms the basis of the traditional quantum logic of Birkhoff and von Neumann) is replaced by a specific distributive lattice $\mathcal{O}(\Sigma_{n})$ of functions from the poset $\mathcal{C}(M_{n}(\mathbb{C}))$ of all unital commutative C*-subalgebras C of M n (ℂ) to ℘(M n (ℂ)). The lattice $\mathcal{O}(\Sigma_{n})$ is essentially the (pointfree) topology of the quantum phase space Σ n , and as such defines a Heyting algebra. Each element of $\mathcal{O}(\Sigma_{n})$ corresponds to a “Bohrified” proposition, in the sense that to each classical context $C\in\mathcal{C}(M_{n}(\mathbb{C}))$ it associates a yes-no question (i.e. an element of the Boolean lattice ℘(C) of projections in C), rather than being a single projection as in standard quantum logic. Distributivity is recovered at the expense of the law of the excluded middle (Tertium Non Datur), whose demise is in our opinion to be welcomed, not just in intuitionistic logic in the spirit of Brouwer, but also in quantum logic in the spirit of von Neumann. (shrink)

Fried provides a conventional exposition of deontological ethics. The accentuated polemical tone directed against consequentialism fills the reader with expectations of imminently coming upon a novel line of argumentation advancing the cause of deontology—but he is only to be disappointed.

Renowed historian E.P. Thompson single-handedly changed the marxist understanding of class and class consciousness in his pivotal book The Making of the English Working Class. Thompson not only took issue with the economic and technological determinism that plagued marxist theory, he also took issue with philosophers — Althusser, Foucault, Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, etc. — who variously described history as a process without a subject. Thompson was wary of philosophers. He nonetheless approvingly quotes Maurice Merleau-Ponty in his polemical essay The Poverty (...) of Theory. This surprising reference went unnoticed to this day. Following Thompson’s original reference to Merleau-Ponty’s The Structure of Behavior leads one to a number of observations that the french philosopher made to history, social classes and class counsciousness in works such as Phenomenology of Perception, Sense and Non-Sense and the Adventures of the Dialectic. Those various observations show that Thompson and Merleau-Ponty shared the same phenomenological understanding of class consciousness. (shrink)