Quantum Aristotle

[PeterJ]

Yes, the idea that QM is "not logical" is the idea that doesn't fly for me. The paradoxes in relativity may arise from a misunderstanding of the theory, but within physics they seem more likely to arise from a misunderstanding of logic.

 

I don't think logic is devalued by this approach. It is entirely rigorous, and if it restricts the conclusions we can arrive at in logic then this is the whole idea of having careful rules, to stop us reaching false conclusions.

 

To be completely clear - Aristotles defintion for a contradictory pair is:

 

"Of every contradictory pair one member is true and one false."

 

If this is not the case then there is no contradiction and the LEM becomes irrelevant.

 

It was only when I read a clear commentary on Aristotle's De Interpretatione that I realised what a genius he was. He nailed it.

[Strange]

The paradoxes in relativity may arise from a misunderstanding of the theory, but within physics they seem more likely to arise from a misunderstanding of logic.

 

Not really. No one in physics thinks there are (real) paradoxes; they are just named that. It is only those who don't understand physics who think these are real paradoxes and therefore undermine the theory.

[ydoaPs]

I don't know why you re-quoted those remarks. ydoaPs.. Do you have some sort of problem with them?

It's just funny that you accused me of being arrogant in regards to how non-HPS philosophers do with QM, then you stated that you literally have no idea what you're talking about, but kept on talking anyway.

Yes, the idea that QM is "not logical" is the idea that doesn't fly for me.

Then maybe you should learn more about it. The ontological structure of QM does not admit Boolean logical structure. I've told you why several times and you just plug your ears. Maybe you should open them this time.

[PeterJ]

I see. So if I can't do the maths for QM then I can't have an opinion on logic or the structure of reality. Shame. Best that you go on ignoring my comments then.

 

It seems to me, ydoaPs, that you just don't want to engage with the issues and feel an overwhelming need to put me down. Yes, you've told me that the ontological structure of QM does not admit of Boolean logic. Unfortunately I think you are making a logical mistake, as I have explained, if you think this allows physics to ignore Aristotle. You fail to comment on my responses, however, so I'll assume that there's no point in me making any more. If you could point to a true contradiction breaking the rules there would be something to talk about. It's easy to write down a mathematical contradiction but not so easy to show that it has a correlate in reality.

.

 

Not really. No one in physics thinks there are (real) paradoxes; they are just named that. It is only those who don't understand physics who think these are real paradoxes and therefore undermine the theory.

 

Yeah. That's what I would expect.

[ydoaPs]

I see. So if I can't do the maths for QM then I can't have an opinion on logic or the structure of reality.

Not if it's about quantum mechanics. If you literally have no idea what you're talking about, then, no, you're not going to be taken seriously.

[Strange]

Unfortunately I think you are making a logical mistake, as I have explained, if you think this allows physics to ignore Aristotle.

 

Now I am confused. You said that Aristotelian logic doesn't apply when we are not dealing with binary systems (because Aristotle himself said so), so surely in those cases it is OK to ignore his logic?

[andrewcellini]

Say the proposed contradiction is 'It is raining' and 'It is sunny'.

i don't think "it is sunny" is the logical negation of "it is raining," so i'm not sure how you can apply LEM to it.

 

if your statements were "it is raining" and "it is not raining," then perhaps LEM could be used.

 

you agree to this, correct? then why is QM so special? it has the essentially same issue as you noted with your weather example ("it could be foggy") when it comes to trying to apply the LEM.

Edited November 6, 2015 by andrewcellini

[PeterJ]

i don't think "it is sunny" is the logical negation of "it is raining," so i'm not sure how you can apply LEM to it.

 

if your statements were "it is raining" and "it is not raining," then perhaps LEM could be used.

 

you agree to this, correct? then why is QM so special? it has the essentially same issue as you noted with your weather example ("it could be foggy") when it comes to trying to apply the LEM.

 

Exactly! I would agree completely. It is not that QM breaks or does not break the LEM, but that which of these it is depends on whether, say, the wave-particle duality is, in fact, a contradiction, or whether it merely implies a third state or phenomenon. This would be an empirical matter, one that must be decided by physicists from the experimental evidence, because logic cannot help us decide.

 

I don't think any of this is very contentious, and it would follow directly from Aristotle's defintion for a true contradictory pair.

 

In answer to your question, Andrew, I don't think QM is special in regard to logic but that it raises, as you say, essentially the same issues as arise for the 'raining/sunny' example. Thus it remains an open question in physics whether the universe breaks Aristotles rules,

 

Analysis shows that the universe cannot break the rules, since A wrote them in such a way as to disallow this possibility. This is what I was trying to say. It makes QM no easier to understand, and I would say more difficult, but the logic is very simple. If we don't know that there is no third option then we don't know whether it would be correct to apply the tertium non datur rule. This decision cannot be made in any kind of logic for it would be an empirical matter. .

 

I think that's proably all I wanted to say.

[andrewcellini]

 

Exactly! I would agree completely.

except my conclusion directly contradict yours.

 

would it help to think of superposition of states of a qubit (because it has 1 and 0 involved in the notation)?

 

that is, it's a combination of 1 and 0, it is not just 1 or 0. LEM doesn't hold because it doesn't consider cases where this arises...

 

from the wiki on many valued logic (since you keep referring to aristotles account for other possibilities):

"Aristotle admitted that his laws did not all apply to future events (De Interpretatione, ch. IX), but he didn't create a system of multi-valued logic to explain this isolated remark." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic

 

that is, he didn't create another logic in order to cover another possibility, or n possibilities even. just because he said that his law is probably not applicable in all cases doesn't mean he had alternatives, and if he had an alternative it would be a "many value" logic.

Edited November 7, 2015 by andrewcellini

[PeterJ]

A qubit? So it's a combination of 1 and 0. What would this have to do with any logical problem. Of course the LEM would be irrelevant. It's a combination of 1 and 0. You just said so. Future events? Wha have they got to do with anything? You are muddling up two quite different issues.

 

Not one objection to my point has been made so far.

 

I give up. Poor old Aristotle. It's odd that I write on this topic a fair bit and receive no complaints, then I come here and everyone is up in arms. Everyone always seems to be up in arms here. It is weird. I suppose it is some sort of allergy to non-scientists.

 

But I am being inflammatory. Best if I just leave.

[Strange]

A qubit? So it's a combination of 1 and 0. What would this have to do with any logical problem. Of course the LEM would be irrelevant.

 

Then why did you complain that people were ignoring Aristotle? Aristotelian logic is, as you say, irrelevant.

 

 

Everyone always seems to be up in arms here.

 

You seem to be one of those who interpret any disagreement as an emotional response. But actually, both "sides" seem to be in violent agreement on this issue: Aristotle's logic is irrelevant to QM.

[andrewcellini]

A qubit? So it's a combination of 1 and 0. What would this have to do with any logical problem.

simply because you have 3 truth values to deal with

 

let's count:

 

you have 1

 

you have 0

 

and you have superposition

 

3 possible truth values. really all that matters (for LEM to not hold) is that we end up with more than 1 and 0 as options

Not one objection to my point has been made so far.

well that's clearly not true.

 

Then why did you complain that people were ignoring Aristotle? Aristotelian logic is, as you say, irrelevant.

i think the problem is peter's interpretation of the LEM, more specifically what a "contradiction" means in this context.

Edited November 7, 2015 by andrewcellini

[PeterJ]

 

Then why did you complain that people were ignoring Aristotle? Aristotelian logic is, as you say, irrelevant.

 

 

You seem to be one of those who interpret any disagreement as an emotional response. But actually, both "sides" seem to be in violent agreement on this issue: Aristotle's logic is irrelevant to QM.

 

How can the laws of thought be irelevant to QM? This idea is surely absurd. There are no logical contradictions that arise from QM, so nothing to worry about. QM does not break the LEM for it would be impossible for it to do so. . .

simply because you have 3 truth values to deal with

 

let's count:

 

you have 1

 

you have 0

 

and you have superposition

 

3 possible truth values. really all that matters (for LEM to not hold) is that we end up with more than 1 and 0 as options

well that's clearly not true.

i think the problem is peter's interpretation of the LEM, more specifically what a "contradiction" means in this context.

 

Um. So there are three possibilities. In this case how can there be a contradiction? Is it not rather obvious that 1 and 0 are not a contradiction where a third state is possible? It hardly seems necessary to point it out. It is you who are asuming that there is no third option but in this case there clearly is,.

 

A contradiction wouldbe where all the possibilites are expressed in the two halves. If there are other possibilities then it is not a contradiction. This seems to be very straightforward and would be the interpretation of the LEM recommended by the person who formalised it. .

 

I apologise if I have seemed rather touchy, but I found the dismissive approach of one or two posters difficult. I'll press my reset buttton.

Edited November 7, 2015 by PeterJ

[andrewcellini]

the logical negation of 1 or "true" is still 0 or "false," regardless of a possible third option.

 

 

look at the law, it only covers propositions where there are two truth values, 1(true), or 0(false).

It hardly seems necessary to point it out. It is you who are asuming that there is no third option but in this case there clearly is,.

explain

 

i think it's clear from my posts i am arguing there are more than two truth values to consider when discussing the logic underlying QM.

Edited November 7, 2015 by andrewcellini

[PeterJ]

the logical negation of 1 or "true" is still 0 or "false," regardless of a possible third option.

explain

 

I would see this is as exactly the error that makes the topic so important. What you say would only be true where you have defined '1' an '0' to be a contradiction or where you can prove that it is one. Otherwise the LEM would not apply and the entire number line would exist as options. You cannot say there is a contradiction AND there are other options. You have to make your mind up which it is to be. In your example you state that there are other options, perhaps fractional values, so the LEM would be irrelevant to the case.

 

The point is basically simple. A contradiction must be defined or proved for the LEM to work correctly. If a contradiction is merely assumed then our calculations may go very wrong. This would be why Aristotle goes to so much trouble to be clear about what would constitue a contradiction and what would not.

 

I'm suggesting that often we are not as clear as he is, and that although this is a much bigger issue in philosophy it also has an impact in physics.

 

.

Edited November 7, 2015 by PeterJ

[Strange]

How can the laws of thought be irelevant to QM?

 

But you said:

 

Of course the LEM would be irrelevant.

 

So which is it?

[PeterJ]

Well, according to the LEM I must have meant one of these statements. Perhaps they were said in different contexts.

 

The laws would be irrelevant in respect of false contradictions, those 'paradoxes' that are assumed and not proven, but just as relevant as ever where there is a genuine contradition as specified in the rules. It would be tragic if scientists abandoned the laws for QM for then rational thinking would be impossible. They tend to abandon it in certain specific cases, which I am suggesting is not necessary since they would not apply for those cases. . .

Edited November 8, 2015 by PeterJ

[Strange]

They tend to abandon it in certain specific cases, which I am suggesting is not necessary since they would not apply for those cases. . .

 

This is what I don't understand: what is the difference between "abandoning" and "not applying" ?

[PeterJ]

Yes, this is the issue that is becoming confused. It's a slightly subtle one.

 

If I go to buy bread and milk and find that I only have enough money on me for one of them, then now I must choose. I could buy one or the other and it looks a bit like a binary decision. But then, I could buy a third product. In this case the LEM would not apply to this decision. This would not, however, mean that the laws of thought must be abandoned for shopping. It is just that in this situation.the laws awould be irrelevent to anything and cannot be applied. In the same way, there are instances where it applies and does not apply in QM. So QM is just like any other intellectual activity. We make decision based on the laws of logic where it is legitimate to do so, and not otherwise.

 

The laws will not apply unless there is a contradiction (a dialectic thesis and counter-thesis). Where there is not this would not mean that the laws must be abandoned, just that they are not applicable. It's like saying that the law against murder is not applicable until someone has committed one.

 

What I'm opposing is the ideas that QM requires the abandonment of the laws. This idea seems to arise from their misapplication. .

 

Aristotle gives the conditions necessary for the application of the laws and where those conditions are met the laws will apply. Where they are not met the laws will not apply, I cannot think of a situation where they could sensibly be abandoned or how they could ever be inconsistent with reality.

 

I'm not sure why this has turned out to be a contentious point here but I presume I'm missing something. Maybe it's getting sorted out.

[Strange]

I still don't understand the difference between "abandoning" and "not relevant / not applying".

 

If I don't apply the rule because it is not relevant, then I have abandoned it. if I abandon the rule because it is not relevant then I have not applied it.

 

I guess there is some subtle difference in meaning you are trying to get across, but I don't get it.

 

I'm not sure why this has turned out to be a contentious point here

 

Perhaps because no one else can see the distinction you are trying to make?

[PeterJ]

Heisenberg proposes that QM necessitates a modification to the LEM. This is the view I am opposing. He applies the LEM incorrectly so finds he needs to modify it. In fact the LEM is simply irrelevant to the case since he cites a false contradiction. No modification is required.

 

Likewise some physicists argue that the law of thought must be abandoned for QM. I'm suggesting that they are making the same logical mistake as Heisenberg.

 

The distinction would be crucial. For example, if we assume that an electron must be a wave or a particle then the LEM must apply, and then we run into problems of logic. We are likely to end up wanting to modify or abandon the laws. If we drop the assumption, however, then there can be a third option and the laws will work just fine. Here it would be our assumption that causes the logical problem, not Nature, and it is solved by dropping the assumption. The logical problem that arises from this particular duality can be interpreted as a violation of the laws of logic by Nature, or as telling us that there is a third option. I would vote for the latter interpretation, the one by which Nature is consistent with the way we think.

[Strange]

 

Heisenberg proposes that QM necessitates a modification to the LEM.

 

OK. But that is quite a different argument.

 

If we drop the assumption, however, then there can be a third option and the laws will work just fine.

 

 

But ... the laws work fine because we can ignore them at that point as being not relevant. No?

[PeterJ]

Exactly. The laws work fine, even in QM. This is really all I'm suggesting.

 

We could leave it there.

 

But there is a deeper issue which arises when an error in applying the laws leads to our closing off 'nomic' possibilities. So this is a simple point about logic but quite an important one, and very relevant to the OP.

 

It even happens in politics. People often forget that Democrat and Rebublican are not the only options so feel they have to pick a side and argue for it. They do, but only because of the way the system is set up, not because Nature only offers these two possibilities. Not a great example but the basically the same issue.

 

Are we sorted?

Edited November 9, 2015 by PeterJ

[Strange]

So you don't object to people not applying / ignoring / disregarding / abandoning these irrelevant laws?

[PeterJ]

As I have said many times, I think they should be used properly at all times, with no exceptions.

 

I thought we just agreed that the laws are fine.

 

If people wnat to abandon them they can. Nobody is forced to think rationally.