Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:46:11.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A BRIDGE BETWEEN Q-WORLDS

Part of: Set theory General logic Model theory Special categories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

ANDREAS DÖRING ,
BENJAMIN EVA  and
MASANAO OZAWA
ANDREAS DÖRING
Affiliation:
INDEPENDENT SCHOLAR E-mail: [email protected]
BENJAMIN EVA
Affiliation:
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY DUKE UNIVERSITYDURHAM, NC27708, USAE-mail: [email protected]
MASANAO OZAWA
Affiliation:
NAGOYA UNIVERSITY CHIKUSA-KU, NAGOYA464-8601, JAPAN and CHUBU UNIVERSITY 1200 MATSUMOTO-CHO, KASUGAI 487-8501, JAPANE-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Quantum set theory (QST) and topos quantum theory (TQT) are two long running projects in the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics (QM) that share a great deal of conceptual and technical affinity. Most pertinently, both approaches attempt to resolve some of the conceptual difficulties surrounding QM by reformulating parts of the theory inside of nonclassical mathematical universes, albeit with very different internal logics. We call such mathematical universes, together with those mathematical and logical structures within them that are pertinent to the physical interpretation, ‘Q-worlds’. Here, we provide a unifying framework that allows us to (i) better understand the relationship between different Q-worlds, and (ii) define a general method for transferring concepts and results between TQT and QST, thereby significantly increasing the expressive power of both approaches. Along the way, we develop a novel connection to paraconsistent logic and introduce a new class of structures that have significant implications for recent work on paraconsistent set theory.

Keywords

quantum logicquantum set theorytopos quantum theoryquantum foundationsparaconsistent logic

MSC classification

Primary: 81P10: Logical foundations of quantum mechanics; quantum logic
Secondary: 03C90: Nonclassical models (Boolean-valued, sheaf, etc.) 18B25: Topoi 03B53: Paraconsistent logics 03E70: Nonclassical and second-order set theories
Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 2021 , pp. 447 - 486
Check for updates
Copyright
© Association for Symbolic Logic, 2020

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bell, J. L. (2005). Set Theory: Boolean-Valued Models and Independence Proofs (third edition). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. L. (2008). Toposes and Local Set Theories. An Introduction. New York, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
Birkhoff, G. & von Neumann, J. (1936). The logic of quantum mechanics. Annals of Mathematics, 37(4), 823–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, R. T. (1989). The non-triviality of dialectical set theory. In Priest, G., Routley, R., & Norman, J., editors. Paraconsistent Logic: Essays on the Inconsistent. München, Germany: Philosophia, pp. 437–470.Google Scholar
Cannon, S. (2013). The Spectral Presheaf of an Orthomodular Lattice. MSc Thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Cannon, S. & Döring, A. (2018). A generalisation of stone duality to orthomodular lattices. In Ozawa, M., Butterfield, J., Halvorson, H., Rédei, M., and Kitajima, Y., editors. Reality and Measurement in Algebraic Quantum Theory, Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics (PROMS), Vol. 261. Singapore: Springer, pp. 3–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döring, A. (2016). Topos-based logic for quantum systems and bi-heyting algebras. In Chubb, J., Eskandarian, A., & Harizanov, V., editors. Logic and Algebraic Structures in Quantum Computing. Lecture Notes in Logic, Vol. 45. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döring, A. & Isham, C. (2011). What is a thing? Topos theory in the foundations of physics. In Coecke, B., editor. New Structures for Physics. Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 813. Berlin: Springer, pp. 753–940.Google Scholar
Dummett, M. (1976). Is logic empirical? In Lewis, H. D., editor. Contemporary British Philosophy, 4th series. London: Allen and Unwin, pp. 45–68.Google Scholar
Eva, B. (2015). Towards a paraconsistent quantum set theory. In Heunen, C., Selinger, P., & Vicary, J., editors. Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Quantum Physics and Logic (QPL 2015), Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science (EPTCS), Vol. 195, pp. 158–169.Google Scholar
Eva, B. (2017). Topos theoretic quantum realism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 68(4), 1149–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbins, P. (2008). Particles and Paradox: The Limits of Quantum Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hardegree, G. (1981). Material implication in orthomodular (and Boolean) lattices. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 22, 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, J., Heunen, C., Lindenhovius, B., & Navara, M. (2019). Boolean subalgebras of orthoalgebras. Order—A Journal on the Theory of Ordered Sets and its Applications, 36(3), 563–609.Google Scholar
Harding, J. & Navara, M. (2011). Subalgebras of orthomodular lattices. Order—A Journal on the Theory of Ordered Sets and its Applications, 28(3), 549–563.Google Scholar
Isham, C. (1997). Topos theory and consistent histories: The internal logic of the set of all consistent sets. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 36, 785–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isham, C. & Butterfield, J. (1998). A topos perspective on the Kochen–Specker theorem 1: Quantum states as generalized valuations. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 37, 2669–2733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jech, T. (2003). Set Theory: The Third Millennium Edition, Revised and Expanded. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Johnstone, P. (2002/03). Sketches of an Elephant, A Topos Theory Compendium , Vols. I and II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Libert, T. (2005). Models for a paraconsistent set theory. Journal of Applied Logic, 3, 15–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Löwe, B. & Tarafder, S. (2015). Generalised algebra-valued models of set theory. Review of Symbolic Logic, 8, 192–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Lane, S. & Moerdijk, I. (1994). Sheaves in Geometry and Logic, A First Introduction to Topos Theory. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKubre-Jordens, M. & Weber, Z. (2012). Real analysis in paraconsistent logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 41, 901–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). The logic of quantum mechanics. In Mathematics, Matter and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 174–197.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (1979). Logic of paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 219–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozawa, M. (2004). Uncertainty relations for joint measurements of noncommuting observables. Physics Letters A, 320, 367–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozawa, M. (2007). Transfer principle in quantum set theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 72, 625–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozawa, M. (2016). Quantum set theory extending the standard probabilistic interpretation of quantum theory. New Generation Computing, 34, 125–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozawa, M. (2017). Operational meanings of orders of observables defined through quantum set theories with different conditionals. In Duncan, R. & Heunen, C., editors. Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Quantum Physics and Logic (QPL2016), Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science (EPTCS), Vol. 236, pp. 127–144.Google Scholar
Ozawa, M. (2017). Orthomodular-valued models for quantum set theory. Review of Symbolic Logic, 10, 782–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, M. & Simon, B. (1980). Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics I: Functional Analysis (Revised and Enlarged Edition). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Stone, M. H. (1936). The theory of representations for boolean algebras. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 40, 37–111.Google Scholar
Takeuti, G. (1974). Two Applications of Logic to Mathematics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Takeuti, G. (1981). Quantum set theory. In Beltrameti, E. G. & van Fraassen, B., editors. Current Issues in Quantum Logic. New York: Plenum, pp. 303–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titani, S. (1999). Lattice valued set theory. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 38(6), 395–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Z. (2010). Transfinite numbers in paraconsistent set theory. Review of Symbolic Logic, 3, 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Z. (2012). Transfinite cardinals in paraconsistent set theory. Review of Symbolic Logic, 5, 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ying, M. (2005). A theory of computation based on quantum logic (I). Theoretical Computer Science, 344, 134–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar