Three-valued logic, indeterminacy and quantum mechanics (Q5935789)

The paper starts with a discussion of future contingents, claiming that Łukasiewicz 3-valued logic was motivated by these considerations, but a ``semi-classical'' 3-valued logic ``that retains all classical tautologies'' is more appropriate than Łukasiewicz logic to express them. He then introduces ``supervaluations'', 3-valued mappings derived from bivalent valuations to provide a basis for his system. The logic is not clearly presented for example only ``partial'' truth-tables are provided (p. 101). Algebraic representation of the logic is similarly non-rigorous, assumed to be ``a usual Boolean algebra of formulas'' (p. 101). Supervaluations are represented by filters generated by a formula, representing ``the logically strongest of all formulae true under this valuation'' (p. 105). The second part considers quantum theory. An example describing spin along 2 axes is discussed, with a diagram of the ``representative Boolean algebra'' of formulae, as well as a diagram of the corresponding Hilbert space representation. The author accepts the ``standard'' view that Hilbert Space yields an ortho-complemented non-distributive structure, but contends this does not represent the logic of quantum descriptions. Examples of formulae connecting incompatible atomic descriptions are discussed to show how distribution is preserved in 3-valued quantum descriptions, with the claim that: ``The difference between classical and quantum cases lies not in the algebraic structure of propositions, but in the valuations admitted'' (p. 115). He admits there is an ``arbitrariness'' in claiming only some filters represent quantum valuations, but contends that a non-distributive quantum logic has more problems. This reviewer shares some views of this author and has introduced some similar definitions (of ``characteristic'' valuations and filters for example) in arguing against a non-distributive quantum logic. See for example \textit{R. W. Garden}, Modern logic and quantum mechanics, Bristol: Adam Hilger (1984; Zbl 0586.03003), or Int. J. Theor. Phys. 35, 859-901 (1996; Zbl 0854.03056). But in my view this paper presents an uneasy mix of informal discussion with formal elements that leads ultimately to confusion. To take just one example: ``In quantum logic valuations are represented, as usual, by ultrafilters. The three-valuedness of quantum logic is ensured by the fact that in orthomodular lattices the condition \(\phi\in U\) iff \(\neg\phi\not\in U\) for ultrafilters doesn't hold'' (p. 115). But this condition, characteristic for Boolean ultrafilters, is a property of ortho-complementation. It can hardly be the ``orthomodular'' nature of quantum logic that leads it to fail. I have argued since 1984 that quantum examples show a breakdown in complementation, that we have a relatively (not fully) ortho-complemented and distributive algebra representing quantum logic. Given the discussion here of 3-valued connectives, examples like that above and disquiet with the standard non-distributive view, it seems strange this author does not come to a similar conclusion. In fact the discursive style leaves his conclusions quite unclear. Perhaps we are to come back to Łukasiewicz logic after all, ``all mixed disjunctions and conjunctions should be indeterminate'' (p. 116), yet again in the final sentence is the claim that all classical tautologies are preserved. There is a lot to be said for rigour after all.