Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-28T01:31:51.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Substitution and Truth in Quantum Logic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Itamar Pitowsky
Itamar Pitowsky*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Western Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

If p(x1, …, xn) and q(x1 …, xn) are two logically equivalent propositions then p(π(x1), …, π(xn)) and q(π(x1), …,π(xn)) are also logically equivalent where π is an arbitrary permutation of the elementary constituents x1, …, xn. In Quantum Logic the invariance of logical equivalences breaks down. It is proved that the distribution rules of classical logic are in fact equivalent to the meta-linguistic rule of universal substitution and that the more restrictive structure of the substitution group of Quantum Logic prevents us from defining truth in a classical fashion. These observations lead to a more profound understanding of the Logic of Quantum Mechanics and of the role that symmetry principles play in that theory.

… Its decisive difference in comparison to the Classical-Model is the fact that gratings in vector-space defy superposition.

—Hermann Weyl (1949)

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , September 1982 , pp. 380 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I wish to thank Professor J. Bub and Professor W. Demopoulos for their valuable suggestions and remarks.

References

Birkhoff, G. and Von Neumann, J. (1936), “The Logic of Quantum Mechanics”, Annals of Mathematics 37: 823–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bub, J. (1979), “The Measurement Problem of Quantum Mechanics”, Problems in the Foundations of Physics. Soc. Italiana di Fisica, Vol. LXXII, Bologna-Italy: 71–123.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, D. (1968), “Matter, Space and Logic”, R. S. Cohen and M. Wartofsky (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. V: 199–215.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. and Putnam, H. (1978), “Quantum Logic, Conditional Probability and Interference”, Dialectica, Vol. 32, No. 3–4: 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glashow, S. L. (1980), “Towards a Unified Theory: Threads in a Tapestry”, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 52, no. 3: 539–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleason, A. M. (1957), “Measures on Closed Subspaces of a Hilbert Space”, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, Vol. 6, no. 6: 885–893.Google Scholar
Jauch, J. M. (1968), Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Kochen, S. (1979), “The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Kochen, S. and Specker, E. (1967), “The Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics”, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 17: 59–67.Google Scholar
Lee, T. D. and Yang, C. N. (1956), “Questions of Parity Conservation in Weak Interactions”, Physical Review 104: 254–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mautner, F. I. (1946), “Extention of Klein's Erlanger Program: Logic as Invariant Theory”, American Journal of Mathematics, Vol. 68: 345–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitowsky, I. (1982), “Resolution of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen and Bell Paradoxes”, Physical Review Letters 48: 1299–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1968), “Is Logic Empirical?”, R. S. Cohen and M. Wartofsky (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. V: 216–241.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1976), “How to Think Quantum-Logically”, P. Suppes (ed.), Logic and Probability in Quantum-Mechanics. Dordecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1953), “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, From a Logical Point of View. New York: Harper & Row, 20–46.Google Scholar
Salam, A. (1980), “Gauge Unification of Fundamental Forces”, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 52, no. 3: 525–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Specker, E. (1960), “Die Logic Nicht Gleichzeiting Estsheidbarer Anssagen”, Dialectica 14: 239–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, S. (1974), “Unified Theories of Elementary-Particle Interaction”, Scientific American, July 1974: 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, S. (1980), “Conceptual Foundations of the Unified Theory of Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions”, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 52, no. 3: 515–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyl, H. (1946), The Classical Groups, Their Invariants and Representations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Weyl, H. (1949), Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science (reprinted 1963). New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
Weyl, H. (1950), The Theory of Groups in Quantum-Mechanics. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Wigner, E. (1959), Group Theory and Its Application to Quantum Mechanics of Atomic Spectra. New York: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Wu, C. S., Ambler, E., Hayward, R. W., Hoppes, D. D., Hudson, R. P. (1957), “Experimental Test of Parity Conservation in Beta Decay”, Physical Review 105: 1413–1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar