International Journal of Theoretical Physics

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 785–814

Topos theory and consistent histories: The internal logic of the set of all consistent sets

  • C. J. Isham


A major problem in the consistent-histories approach to quantum theory is contending with the potentially large number of consistent sets of history propositions. One possibility is to find a scheme in which a unique set is selected in some way. However, in this paper the alternative approach is considered in which all consistent sets are kept, leading to a type of ‘many-world-views’ picture of the quantum theory. It is shown that a natural way of handling this situation is to employ the theory of varying sets (presheafs) on the spaceB of all nontrivial Boolean subalgebras of the orthoalgebraUP of history propositions. This approach automatically includes the feature whereby probabilistic predictions are meaningful only in the context of a consistent set of history propositions. More strikingly, it leads to a picture in which the ‘truth values’ or ‘semantic values’ of such contextual predictions are not just two-valued (i.e., true and false) but instead lie in a larger logical algebra—a Heyting algebra—whose structure is determined by the spaceB of Boolean subalgebras ofUP. This topos-theoretic structure thereby gives a coherent mathematical framework in which to understand the internal logic of the many-world-views picture that arises naturally in the approach to quantum theory based on the ideas of consistent histories.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bell, J. L. (1988).Toposes and Local Set Theories: An Introduction, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  2. Butterfield, J. (1995). Words, minds and quantun,Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society,69, 113–158.Google Scholar
  3. Crane, L. (1995). Clocks and categories: Is quantum gravity algebraic?Journal of Mathematical Physics,36, 6180–6193.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  4. Dowker, H. F., and Kent, A. (1995). Properties of consistent histories.Physical Review Letters,75, 3038–3041.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  5. Dowker, H. F., and Kent, A. (1996). On the consistent histories approach to quantum mechanics,Journal of Statistical Physics,82, 1575–1646.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dummett, M. (1959). Truth,Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society,59, 141–162.Google Scholar
  7. Foulis, D. J., Greechie, R. J., and Rüttimann, G. T. (1992). Filters and supports in orthoalgebras,International Journal of Theoretical Physics,31, 789–807.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gell-Mann, M., and Hartle, J. (1990a). Alternative decohering histories in quantum mechanics, inProceedings of the 25th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Singapore, August, 1990, K. K. Phua and Y. Yamaguchi, eds.), World Scientific, Singapore.Google Scholar
  9. Gell-Mann, M., and Hartle, J. (1990b). Quantum mechanics in the light of quantum cosmology, inComplexity, Entropy and the Physics of Information, W. Zurek, ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  10. Goldblatt, R. (1984).Topoi: The Categorial Analysis of Logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Griffiths, R. B. (1984) Consistent histories and the interpretation of quantum mechanics,Journal of Statistical Physics,36, 219–272.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Griffiths, R. B. (1993).Foundations of Physics,23, 1601.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Griffiths, R. B. (1996). Consistent histories and quantum reasoning [quant-ph/9606004].Google Scholar
  14. Halliwell, J. (1995). A review of the decoherent histories approach to quantum mechanics, inFundamental Problems in Quantum Theory, D. M. Greenberger and A. Zeilinger, eds., New York Academy of Sciences, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Hardegree, G. M., and Frazer, P.J. (1982). Charting the labyrinth of quantum logics: A progress report, inCurrent Issues in Quantum Logic, E. G. Beltrametti and B. V. van Frassen, eds., Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Hartle, J. (1991).The quantum mechanics of cosmology, inQuantum Cosmology and Baby Universes, S. Coleman, J. Hartle, T. Piran, and S. Weinberg, eds. World Scientific, Singapore.Google Scholar
  17. Hartle, J. (1995). Spacetime quantum mechanics and the quantum mechanics of space-time, inProceedings of the 1992 Les Houches School, Gravitation and Quantization, B. Julia and J. Zinn-Justin, eds., Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  18. Isham, C. J. (1994). Quantum logic and the histories approach to quantum theory.Journal of Mathematical Physics,35, 2157–2185.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  19. Isham, C. J. (1995). Quantum logic and decohering histories, inTopics in Quantum Field Theory, D. H. Tchrakian, ed., World Scientific, Singapore.Google Scholar
  20. Isham, C. J., and Linden, N. (1994). Quantum temporal logic and decoherence functionals in the histories approach to generalized quantum theory.Journal of Mathematical Physics,35, 5452–5476.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  21. Isham, C. J., and Linden, N. (1995). Continuous histories and the history group in generalized quantum theory.Journal of Mathemtical Physics,36, 5392–5408.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  22. Isham, C. J., Linden, N., and Schreckenberg, S. (1994). The classification of decoherence functionals: An analogue of Gleason's theorem,Journal of Mathematical Physics,35, 6360–6370.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  23. Kent, A. (1996). Consistent sets contradict [gr-qc/9604012].Google Scholar
  24. Kripke, S. (1963). Semantical considerations on modal logic,Acta Philosophica Fennica,16, 83–94.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Lawvere, F. W. (1975). Continuously varible sets: Algebraic geometry=geometric logic, inProceedings Logic Colloquium Bristol 1973, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  26. Loux, M. J. (1979).The Possible and the Actual, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  27. MacLane, S., and Moerdijk, I. (1992).Sheaves in Geometry and Logic: A First Introduction to Topos Theory, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  28. Omnès, R. (1988a). Logical reformulation of quantum mechanics. I. Foundations,Journal of statistical Physics,53, 893–932.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Omnès, R. (1988b). Logical reformulation of quantum mechanics. II. Interferences and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment,Journal of Statistical Physics,53, 933–955.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Omnès, R. (1988c). Logical reformulation of quantum mechanics. III. Classical limit and irreversibility,Journal of Statistical Physics,53, 957–975.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Omnès, R. (1989). Logical reformulation of quantum mechanics. IV. Projectors in semiclassical physics.Journal of Statistical Physics,57, 357–382.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Omnès, R. (1990). From Hilbert spaceto common sense: A synthesis of recent progress in the interpretation of quantum mechanics,Annals of Physics,201, 354–447.MathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  33. Omnès, R. (1992). Consistent interpretations of quantum mechanics,Reviews of Modern Physics,64, 339–382.MathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  34. Rovelli, C. (1996). Relational quantum theory,International Journal of Theoretical Physics, in press.Google Scholar
  35. Smolin, L. (1995). The Bekenstein bound, topological quantum field theory, and pluralistic quantum cosmology [gr-qc/9508064].Google Scholar
  36. Wittgenstein, L. (1966).Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. J. Isham
    • 1
  1. 1.Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College of ScienceTechnology and MedicineLondonUK

Personalised recommendations