The logos categorical approach to quantum mechanics. I: Kochen-Specker contextuality and global intensive valuations (Q2241033): Difference between revisions

The first author [``Unscrambling the omelette of quantum contextuality. I: Preexistent properties or measurement outcomes?'', Preprint, \url{arXiv:1606.03967}] argued that there exist two different notions of quantum contextuality within the foundational literature. The first, due to \textit{N. Bohr} [Phys. Rev., II. Ser. 48, 696--702 (1935; Zbl 0012.42701); \textit{A. Einstein} et al., Phys. Rev., II. Ser. 47, 777--780 (1935; Zbl 0012.04201)], is an epistemic notion of contextuality grounding itself in the classical representation of experimental arrangements and the so-called wave-particle duality. The second, related to Kochen-Specker theorem [\textit{S. Kochen} and \textit{E. P. Specker}, J. Math. Mech. 17, 59--87 (1967; Zbl 0156.23302)] is concerned with an ontic questioning about the formalism of the theory and its possible conceptual representation. While Bohrian contexuality is strictly related to our classical image of the world, Kochen-Specker contexuality is genuinely formal statement regarding valuations about the orthodox formalism of quantum mechanics and the limits of its ontological interpretation in terms of definite valued properties. This paper presents a new categorical approach attempting to consider the main features of the quantum formalism as the standpoint to develop a conceptual representation that explains what the theory is really talking about. In particular, the authors discuss a solution to Kochen-Specker contextuality through the generalization of the meaning of \textit{global valuation}, which has already been addressed in the so-called topos approach to quantum mechanics [\textit{C. J. Isham}, J. Math. Phys. 35, No. 5, 2157--2185 (1994; Zbl 0814.03040); \textit{C. J. Isham} and \textit{J. Butterfield}, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 37, No. 11, 2669--2733 (1998; Zbl 0979.81018); Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38, No. 3, 827--859 (1999; Zbl 1007.81009); \textit{J. Hamilton} et al., Int. J. Theor. Phys. 39, No. 6, 1413--1436 (2000; Zbl 1055.81004); \textit{J. Butterfield} and \textit{C. J. Isham}, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 41, No. 4, 613--639 (2002; Zbl 1021.81002); \textit{C. J. Isham}, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 36, No. 4, 785--814 (1997; Zbl 0881.03039); \textit{A. Döring} and \textit{C. J. Isham}, J. Math. Phys. 49, No. 5, 053515, 25 p. (2008; Zbl 1152.81408); J. Math. Phys. 49, No. 5, 053516, 26 p. (2008; Zbl 1152.81409); J. Math. Phys. 49, No. 5, 053517, 31 p. (2008; Zbl 1152.81410); J. Math. Phys. 49, No. 5, 053518, 29 p. (2008; Zbl 1152.81411)] in terms of \textit{sieve-valued valuations}. The authors present a different solution in terms of \textit{intensive valuations}. While the topos approach is part of the orthodox line of research attempting to bridge the gap between quantum mechanics and the classical worldview, the authors' logos approach takes as a standpoint the formalism of quantum mechanics, stressing the need to develop an objective conceptual representation of physical reality.