The idea of a propositional logic with rules radically different from Boolean logic in itself was not new. In an article also titled "Is logic empirical?," Michael Dummett argues that Putnam's desire for realism mandates distributivity: the principle of distributivity is essential for the realist's understanding of how propositions are true of the world, in just the same way as he argues the principle of bivalence is. To justify this claim he cited the so-called paradoxes of quantum mechanics. He sees the only possible resolution of the paradox as lying in the embrace of quantum logic, in which he believes this is not inconsistent. The formal properties of such a logical system can be given by a set of fairly simple rules, certainly far simpler than the "projection algebra" that Birkhoff and von Neumann had introduced a few years earlier. Second, to be able to apply truth tables to describe a connective depends upon distributivity: a truth table is a disjunction of conjunctive possibilities, and the validity of the exercise depends upon the truth of the whole being a consequence of the bivalence of the propositions, which is true only if the principle of distributivity applies. Certain statements - … In the first place, he made an analogy between laws of logic and laws of geometry: as Euclid's postulates were once believed to be truths about the physical space in which we live, now rather we believe we live in a non-Euclidean world, with a different and fundamentally incompatible notion of straight line. is the title of two articles that discuss the idea that the algebraic properties of logic may, or should, be empirically determined; in particular, they deal with the question of whether empirical facts about quantum phenomena may provide grounds for revising classical logic as a consistent logical rendering of reality. In his seminal paper "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," the logician and philosopher W.V. His solution was a logic of properties with a three-valued semantics; that is each property could have three possible truth-values: true, false or indeterminate. No mathematical theory is empirical. Guido Bacciagaluppi∗ 26 May 2007 Abstract 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’ That logic came to be known as quantum logic. The replacement derives from the work of Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann on quantum logic: quantum measurements can be represented as binary propositions, the relations between which form a certain structure. Hence Putnam cannot embrace realism without embracing classical logic, and hence his argument to endorse quantum logic because of realism about quanta is a hopeless case. "Is logic empirical?" As such the choice of an appropriate language was not a matter of the truth or falsity of a given language, in this case the language used to describe quantum mechanics, but a matter of "technical advantages of language systems". j�M���Z}�.J�1��V.�>;3{�f��=;���Z'(d�d�Xs�p�^�"�m�� ��(2�;��12|lnmQ�eF�;k�V�oZ�ҹ�5-� ����� �����i9]Y����� No. �rdJ���1 �`��i�����n'�+�����L �Ӓ���Ny���Wpr2՝��z_Px����PJw3�|6���W�F���YVX5,X�A������mso��8�� 4R���*۟�4"U��Fln����֒�㽬p^�������3�b�}}3� �����!Z�����Q�j��.±��K�b��p��.4: 1�r(��� �caH1��n��u�}�+D�e�΀J�i�p��8uiV��9�٦�w�>� ��dZbpzcVT�tQ��yݏ8�$������W;A;Ut�/���A�]��$� I�߉n?���u��Fv��Qg(��cCę.lո8�H�\��a���N*�\��r+�nR_�� ����\ͪ푸������*��� ��u����'Z. The classic example of complementarity is illustrated by the double-slit experiment in which a photon can be made to exhibit particle-like properties or wave-like properties, depending on the experimental setup used to detect its presence. The idea that the principles of logic might be susceptible to revision on empirical grounds has many roots, including the work of W.V. I shall argue that the answer to this question is in the affirmative, and that logic is, in a certain sense, a natural science. Since the uncertainty principle says that either of them can be determined, but both cannot be determined at the same time, he faces a paradox. Quantum logic is still used as a foundational formalism for quantum mechanics: but in a way in which primitive events are not interpreted as atomic sentences but rather in operational terms as possible outcomes of observations. As such, quantum logic provides a unified and consistent mathematical theory of physical observables and quantum measurement. If this were the case, then our "preconceived" Boolean logic would have to be rejected by empirical evidence in the same way Euclidean geometry (taken as the correct geometry of physical space) was rejected on the basis of (the facts supporting the theory of) general relativity. Consequently intuitionistic logic is privileged over classical logic, when it comes to disputation concerning phenomena whose objective existence is a matter of controversy. Thus the question, "Is logic empirical?," for Dummett, leads naturally into the dispute over bivalence and anti-realism, one of the deepest issues in modern metaphysics. However, because of this simplicity, the intended semantics of Reichenbach's three-valued logic is unsuited to provide a foundation for quantum mechanics that can account for observables. K,�;>�g)�D=ɜ��d�c�-�A�@.U��i.��2};��S�[���+��9��2b��jO�VYzg �8L��%�,��)��鯤湟�����$c'!%� ��Υ~vAw�s�,pt.�a�����sC���\yI��0���/�װ�V��l����E9�q�h�����?���E����G��y����� TIP: The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, The Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, What is the epistemological status of the laws of logic? First, we need to distinguish, after Peirce and scholastics, two different logics: "logica docens" (doctoral logic), and "logica utens" (logic in possession), of instinctive reasoning. ���V/�n�B�[Ie22�WA+*�cMkз��j�&�׻}�%�y�G!���E2z�� [1] Hilary Putnam, whose PhD studies were supervised by Reichenbach, pursued Quine's idea systematically. ˔ea+/�*�1����f7`s������ ��j���O��H����eN�JsO�IR��OQ�\83(Ұ�b/H�0�Rf�39��ƅ�(q���\Dh�ؖ�Ia�^��aT�,���4�����8�J��*q\���������:O�N�k�;�D62Aú�w���-���q��,k_�o�ҟ�NX̾��K�k�:�Q�ßu/f�EKg@q(����-��*���[h��;"�I3��G�Se!|�e�=��C7&Fl���4=��(�7.Xz�`~�M�� List of lists. The algebraic properties of this structure are somewhat different from those of classical propositional logic in that the principle of distributivity fails. 3 0 obj << The formal laws of a physical theory are justified by a process of repeated controlled observations. There are, however, few philosophers today who regard this logic as a replacement for classical logic; Putnam may no longer hold that view. Robert S. Cohen and Marx W. Wartofsky (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1968), pp. Quine argued that all beliefs are in principle subject to revision in the face of empirical data, including the so-called analytic propositions. Thus the laws of logic, being paradigmatic cases of analytic propositions, are not immune to revision. We live in a world with a non-classical logic. stream x�uXY��8~ϯ�[��Z�|�e��^S�E��>��qc|�>:��I�I��KDK��#E����?U�{Y��e�y׻��մ �(��a��}���&����T��ԯ���o +�� What sort of arguments are appropriate for criticising purported principles of logic? Logic is as empirical as geometry. A pair of properties of a system is said to be complementary if each one of them can be assigned a truth value in some experimental setup, but there is no setup which assigns a truth value to both properties. In this article I argue that there is a sense in which logic is empirical, and hence open to influence from science. Quine did not at first seriously pursue this argument, providing no sustained argument for the claim in that paper. 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. Logic is Not Empirical, Sense 2 (LNE2): The logical consequence relation is e- d fined exclusively in terms of the formal properties of (and formal relations among) objects. I then want to raise the question: could some of the ‘necessary truths’ of logic ever turn out to be false for empirical reasons? 174-197. In particular, he claimed that what physicists have learned about quantum mechanics provides a compelling case for abandoning certain familiar principles of classical logic for this reason: realism about the physical world, which Putnam generally maintains, demands that we square up to the anomalies associated with quantum phenomena. To grasp why: consider why truth tables work for classical logic: firstly, it must be the case that the variable parts of the proposition are either true or false: if they could be other values, or fail to have truth values at all, then the truth table analysis of logical connectives would not exhaust the possible ways these could be applied; for example intutionistic logic respects the classical truth tables, but not the laws of classical logic, because intuitionistic logic allows propositions to be other than true or false.