Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does Science Influence the Logic we Ought to Use: A Reflection on the Quantum Logic Controversy

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article I argue that there is a sense in which logic is empirical, and hence open to influence from science. One of the roles of logic is the modelling and extending of natural language reasoning. It does so by providing a formal system which succeeds in modelling the structure of a paradigmatic set of our natural language inferences and which then permits us to extend this structure to novel cases with relative ease. In choosing the best system of those that succeed in this, we seek certain virtues of such structures such as simplicity and naturalness (which will be explained).

Science can influence logic by bringing us, as in the case of quantum mechanics, to make natural language inferences about new kinds of systems and thereby extend the set of paradigmatic cases that our formal logic ought to model as simply and naturally as possible. This can alter which structures ought to be used to provide semantics for such models. I show why such a revolution could have led us to reject one logic for another through explaining why complex claims about quantum mechanical systems failed to lead us to reject classical logic for quantum logic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bacciagaluppi G.(2009) ‘Is Logic Empirical’. In Engesser K., Gabbay M., Lehmann D. (eds.) Handbook of Quantum Logic and Quantum Structures: Quantum Logic. Elsevier pp. 49–78

  2. Belnap N.: ‘Tonk, Plonk and Plink’. Analysis 22(6), 130–134 (1962)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chiara, M., D., ‘Quantum Logics’, in D.M. Gabbay and F. Guenther (eds.),Handbook of Philosophical Logic Volume 3, D. Reidal Publishing Company, 1986, pp. 427–469.

  4. Cohen, D., An Introduction to Hilbert Space and Quantum Logic, Springer-Verlag, 1989.

  5. Dickson M.: ‘Quantum Logic is Alive ∩ (It is True \({\vee}\) It is false)’. Philosophy of Science (Proceedings) 68, S274–287 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dummett, M., The Logical Basis of Metaphysics, Harvard University Press, 1991.

  7. Foulis D.J.: ‘A note on orthomodular lattices’. Portugaliae Mathematica 21, 65–72 (1962)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Foulis, D. J., ‘A Half Century of Quantum Logic, What have we learned?’, Proceedings of the Einstein Meets Magritte Conference, 1995.

  9. Foulis D.J., Bennett M.K.: ‘Tensor products of orthoalgebras’. Order 10(3), 271–282 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Foulis D.J., Bennett M.K.: ‘Effect algebras and unsharp quantum mechanics’. Foundations of Physics 24(10), 1331–1352 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Foulis, D. J., and C.H. Randall, ‘Empirical Logic and Tensor Products’, in H. Neumann (ed.), Interpretations and Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Bibliographisches Institut, Wissenschaftsverlag, 1981.

  12. Greechie, R. J., ‘A non-standard quantum logic with a strong set of states’, in E.G. Beltrametti and B. C. van Fraasen (eds.), Current Issues in Quantum Logic, Plenum, 1981, pp. 375-380.

  13. Gudder S.P.: ‘Spectral methods for a generalized probability theory’. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 119, 428–442 (1965)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gudder, S.P., Quantum Probability, Academic Press, 1988.

  15. Giuntini R., Greuling H.: ‘Toward a formal language for unsharp properties’. Foundations of Physics 19(7), 931–945 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kalmbach, G., Orthomodular Lattices, Academic Press, 1983.

  17. Loomis, L., ‘The Lattice Theoretic Background of the Dimension Theory of Operator Algebras’, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society 18, 1955.

  18. Maeda S.: ‘Dimension functions on certain general lattices’. Journal of Science of the Hiroshima University A 19, 211–237 (1955)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Manning, C.D., and H. Schütze, Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing, MIT Press, 2003.

  20. Putnam, H., ‘Is Logic Empirical’, in R. Cohen and M. Wartofsky (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume 5, D. Reidel, 216–241, 1968.

  21. Randall, D.H., and D.J. Foulis, ‘The Operational Approach to Quantum Mechanics’, in C.A. Hooker (ed.), Physical Theory as Logico-Operational Structure, D. Reidel, 1978.

  22. Widdows, D., and S. Peters, ‘Word Vectors and Quantum Logic: Experiments with negation and disjunction’, in R. T. Oehrle and J. Rogers (eds.), Proceeding of Mathematics of Language 8, Stanford, 2003, pp. 1–13.

  23. Wilce, A., ‘Formalism and Interpretation in Quantum Theory’, Foundations of Physics. To appear.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of PASI, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia

    Michael Ashcroft

Authors
  1. Michael Ashcroft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Ashcroft.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ashcroft, M. Does Science Influence the Logic we Ought to Use: A Reflection on the Quantum Logic Controversy. Stud Logica 95, 183–206 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-010-9245-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-010-9245-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation