Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T10:48:05.851Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantum Logic, Realism, and Value Definiteness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Allen Stairs
Allen Stairs*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the most interesting programs in the foundations of quantum mechanics is the realist quantum logic approach associated with Putnam, Bub, Demopoulos and Friedman (and which is the focus of my own research.) I believe that realist quantum logic is our best hope for making sense of quantum mechanics, but I have come to suspect that the usual version may not be the correct one. In this paper, I would like to say why and to propose an alternative.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , December 1983 , pp. 578 - 602
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1983

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.)

References

Bell, J. S. (1964), “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox”, Physics 1: 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bub, J. (1979a), “The Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics”, Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi“, G. Toraldo di Francia (ed.). Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 71–121.Google Scholar
Bub, J. (1979b), “Some Reflections on Schrödinger's Cat and the Measurement Problem”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 30: 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demopoulos, W. (1976), “The Possibility Structure of Physical Systems”, Foundations of Probability Theory, Statistical Inference and Statistical Theories of Science, University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, vol. 3, Harper, W. L. and Hooker, C. A. (eds.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demopoulos, W. (1980), “Locality and the Algebraic Structure of Quantum Mechanics”, Studies in the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Suppes, P. (ed.). East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 119–144.Google Scholar
Dummett, M. (1973), Frege: A Philosophical Study. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Dummett, M. (1978), Truth and Other Enigmas. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (1971), “Probability in Quantum Mechanics and Other Statistical Theories”, Problems in the Foundations of Physics, Bunge, M. (ed.). Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. (1982), “Antinomies of Entanglement: The Puzzling Case of the Tangled Statistics “, Journal of Philosophy LXXIX: 733–747.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. and Putnam, H. (1978), “Quantum Logic, Conditional Probability and Interference”, Dialectica 32: 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. (1973), “Objective Single-Case Probabilities and the Foundations of Statistics”, Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science IV, Proceedings of the 1971 International Congress, Bucharest, Suppes, P. (ed.). Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 467–483.Google Scholar
Gleason, A. M. (1957), “Measures on the Closed Subspaces of a Hilbert Space”, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 6: 885–893.Google Scholar
Hellman, G. (1982), “Stochastic Einstein-Locality and the Bell Theorems”, Synthese 53: 461–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heywood, P. and Redhead, M. (1983), “Nonlocality and the Kochen-Specker Paradox”, Foundations of Physics 13: 481–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jauch, J. M. (1968), Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Kochen, S. and Specker, E. P. (1967), “The Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics”, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 17: 59–67.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1974), “The Question of Logic” (unpublished talk given at the University of Pittsburgh).Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1969) “Is Logic Empirical?” reprinted as “The Logic of Quantum Mechanics” in H. Putnam, Mathematics, Matter and Method: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1981), “Quantum Mechanics and the Observer”, Erkenntnis 16: 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimony, A. (1978), “Metaphysical Problems in the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics”, International Philosophical Quarterly VIII, 1: 2–17.Google Scholar
Shimony, A. (1980), “The Point We Have Reached”, Epistemological Letters, June, 1980.Google Scholar
Stairs, A. (1978), Quantum Mechanics, Logic and Reality, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
Stairs, A. (1982), “Quantum Logic and the Lüders’ Rule”, Philosophy of Science 49: 422–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stairs, A. (1983a), “On the Logic of Pairs of Quantum Systems”, forthcoming in Synthese.Google Scholar
Stairs, A. (1983b), “Sailing Into the Charybdis: van Fraassen on Bell's Theorem”, forthcoming in Synthese.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, P. & Zanotti, M. (1980), “A New Proof of the Impossibility of Hidden Variables Using the Principles of Exchangeability and Identity of Conditional Distributions”, in P. Suppes (ed.). Studies in the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. East Lansing Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Teller, P. (1979), “Quantum Mechanics and the Nature of Continuous Physical Quantities”, The Journal of Philosophy LXXVI: 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, P. (1983a), “The Projection Postulate as a Fortuitous Approximation”, Philosophy of Science 50: 413–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, P. (1983b), “The Projection Postulate: A New Prospective” (preprint).Google Scholar