Results 1 
4 of
4
NonBoolean Descriptions for MindMatter Problems
"... A framework for the mindmatter problem in a holistic universe which has no parts is outlined. The conceptual structure of modern quantum theory suggests to use complementary Boolean descriptions as elements for a more comprehensive nonBoolean description of a world without an apriorigiven mindmat ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A framework for the mindmatter problem in a holistic universe which has no parts is outlined. The conceptual structure of modern quantum theory suggests to use complementary Boolean descriptions as elements for a more comprehensive nonBoolean description of a world without an apriorigiven mindmatter distinction. Such a description in terms of a locally Boolean but globally nonBoolean structure makes allowance for the fact that Boolean descriptions play a privileged role in science. If we accept the insight that there are no ultimate building blocks, the existence of holistic correlations between contextually chosen parts is a natural consequence. The main problem of a genuinely nonBoolean description is to find an appropriate partition of the universe of discourse. If we adopt the idea that all fundamental laws of physics are invariant under time translations, then we can consider a partition of the world into a tenseless and a tensed domain. In the sense of a regulative principle, the material domain is defined as the tenseless domain with its homogeneous time. The tensed domain contains the mental domain with a tensed time characterized by a privileged position, the Now. Since this partition refers to two complementary descriptions which are not given apriori,wehavetoexpectcorrelations between these two domains. In physics it corresponds to Newton’s separation of universal laws of nature and contingent initial conditions. Both descriptions have a nonBoolean structure and can be encompassed into a single nonBoolean description. Tensed and tenseless time can be synchronized by holistic correlations. 1.
Bohrification
, 2010
"... The aim of this chapter is to construct new foundations for quantum logic and quantum spaces. This is accomplished by merging algebraic quantum theory and topos theory (encompassing the theory of locales or frames, of which toposes in a sense form the ultimate generalization). In a nutshell, the rel ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
The aim of this chapter is to construct new foundations for quantum logic and quantum spaces. This is accomplished by merging algebraic quantum theory and topos theory (encompassing the theory of locales or frames, of which toposes in a sense form the ultimate generalization). In a nutshell, the relation between these fields is as follows. First, our mathematical interpretation of Bohr’s ‘doctrine of classical concepts ’ is that the empirical content of a quantum theory described by a noncommutative (unital) C*algebra A is contained in the family of its commutative (unital) C*algebras, partially ordered by inclusion. Seen as a category, the ensuing poset C(A) canonically defines the topos [C(A), Set] of covariant functors from C(A) to the category Set of sets and functions. This topos contains the ‘Bohrification ’ A of A, defined as the tautological functor C ↦ → C, as an internal commutative C*algebra. Second, according to the toposvalid Gelfand duality theorem of Banaschewski and Mulvey, A has a Gelfand spectrum Σ(A), which is a locale internal to the topos
Bohrification of operator algebras and quantum logic
, 2009
"... Following Birkhoff and von Neumann, quantum logic has traditionally been based on the lattice of closed linear subspaces of some Hilbert space, or, more generally, on the lattice of projections in a von Neumann algebra A. Unfortunately, the logical interpretation of these lattices is impaired by the ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Following Birkhoff and von Neumann, quantum logic has traditionally been based on the lattice of closed linear subspaces of some Hilbert space, or, more generally, on the lattice of projections in a von Neumann algebra A. Unfortunately, the logical interpretation of these lattices is impaired by their nondistributivity and by various other problems. We show that a possible resolution of these difficulties, suggested by the ideas of Bohr, emerges if instead of single projections one considers elementary propositions to be families of projections indexed by a partially ordered set C(A) of appropriate commutative subalgebras of A. In fact, to achieve both maximal generality and ease of use within topos theory, we assume that A is a socalled Rickart C*algebra and that C(A) consists of all unital commutative Rickart C*subalgebras of A. Such families of projections form a Heyting algebra in a natural way, so that the associated propositional logic is intuitionistic: distributivity is recovered at the expense of the law of the excluded middle. Subsequently, generalizing an earlier computation for n×n matrices, we prove that the Heyting algebra thus associated to A arises as a basis for the internal Gelfand spectrum (in the sense of Banaschewski–Mulvey) of the “Bohrification ” A of A, which is a commutative Rickart C*algebra in the topos of functors from C(A) to the category of sets. We explain the relationship of this construction to partial Boolean algebras and Bruns–Lakser completions. Finally, we establish a connection between probability measure on the lattice of projections on a Hilbert space H and probability valuations on the internal Gelfand spectrum of A for A = B(H).
Is logic empirical?
, 2007
"... The philosophical debate about quantum logic between the late 1960s and the early 1980s was generated mainly by Putnam’s claims that quantum mechanics empirically motivates introducing a new form of logic, that such an empirically founded quantum logic is the ‘true’ logic, and that adopting quantum ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
The philosophical debate about quantum logic between the late 1960s and the early 1980s was generated mainly by Putnam’s claims that quantum mechanics empirically motivates introducing a new form of logic, that such an empirically founded quantum logic is the ‘true’ logic, and that adopting quantum logic would resolve all the paradoxes of quantum mechanics. Most of that debate focussed on the latter claim, reaching the conclusion that it was mistaken. This chapter will attempt to clarify the possible misunderstandings surrounding the more radical claims about the revision of logic, assessing them in particular both in the context of more general quantumlike theories (in the framework of von Neumann algebras), and against the background of the current state of play in the philosophy and interpretation of quantum mechanics. Characteristically, the conclusions that might be drawn depend crucially on which of the currently proposed solutions to the measurement problem is adopted.