The Logos Categorical Approach to Quantum Mechanics: I. Kochen-Specker Contextuality and Global Intensive Valuations

In this paper we present a new categorical approach which attempts to provide an original understanding of QM. Our logos categorical approach attempts 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 —rather than as problems that need to be bypassed in order to allow a restoration of a classical “common sense” understanding of what there is. In particular, we discuss a solution to Kochen-Specker contextuality through the generalization of the meaning of global valuation. This idea has been already addressed by the so called topos approach to QM —originally proposed by Isham, Butterfiled and Döring— in terms of sieve-valued valuations. The logos approach to QM presents a different solution in terms of the notion of intensive valuation. This new solution stresses an ontological (rather than epistemic) reading of the quantum formalism and the need to restore an objective (rather than classical) conceptual representation and understanding of quantum physical reality.

[1]  C. J. Isham,et al.  A Topos Perspective on the Kochen-Specker Theorem II. Conceptual Aspects and Classical Analogues , 1998 .

[2]  Kiel T. Williams,et al.  Extreme quantum entanglement in a superposition of macroscopically distinct states. , 1990, Physical review letters.

[3]  W. Heisenberg Physics and Beyond , 1971 .

[4]  E. Specker,et al.  The Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics , 1967 .

[5]  A. Cabello,et al.  Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem: A proof with 18 vectors , 1996, quant-ph/9706009.

[6]  J. Bell,et al.  Speakable and Unspeakable in Quatum Mechanics , 1988 .

[7]  Benjamin Eva Modality and Contextuality in Topos Quantum Theory , 2016, Stud Logica.

[8]  Dirk Aerts,et al.  Description of many separated physical entities without the paradoxes encountered in quantum mechanics , 1982 .

[9]  A. Gleason Measures on the Closed Subspaces of a Hilbert Space , 1957 .

[10]  C. Ronde Probabilistic Knowledge as Objective Knowledge in Quantum Mechanics: Potential Powers Instead of Actual Properties , 2015, 1506.07378.

[11]  Scopes and limits of modality in quantum mechanics , 2006, quant-ph/0612226.

[12]  C. J. Isham,et al.  Topos Perspective on the Kochen-Specker Theorem: I. Quantum States as Generalized Valuations , 1998, quant-ph/9803055.

[13]  C. Massri,et al.  The Logos Categorical Approach to QM: II. Quantum Superpositions. , 2018, 1802.00415.

[14]  J. Neumann,et al.  The Logic of Quantum Mechanics , 1936 .

[15]  Andreas Doering,et al.  “What is a Thing?”: Topos Theory in the Foundations of Physics , 2008, 0803.0417.

[16]  J. Hawthorne A Metaphysician Looks at the Everett Interpretation 1 , 2010 .

[17]  Paul Teller,et al.  Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View , 1991 .

[18]  Rui Soares Barbosa,et al.  Unsharp Values, Domains and Topoi , 2012 .

[19]  G. Kalmbach Quantum measures and spaces , 1998 .

[20]  C. de Ronde,et al.  Causality and the Modeling of the Measurement Process in Quantum Theory , 2017 .

[21]  D. Howard What Makes a Classical Concept Classical ? Toward a Reconstruction of Niels Bohr ' s Philosophy of Physics , 1986 .

[22]  A. Bokulich,et al.  Niels Bohr’s Generalization of Classical Mechanics , 2005 .

[23]  Reinhard Diestel,et al.  Graph Theory , 1997 .

[24]  C. Ronde Unscrambling the Omelette of Quantum Contextuality (Part I): Preexistent Properties or Measurement Outcomes? , 2016, Foundations of Science.

[25]  G. Domenech,et al.  Interpreting the Modal Kochen–Specker theorem: Possibility and many worlds in quantum mechanics , 2014, 1404.5881.

[26]  H. Kyburg Theory and measurement , 1984 .

[27]  C. Massri,et al.  Kochen-Specker Theorem, Physical Invariance and Quantum Individuality , 2014, 1412.2701.

[28]  Asher Peres,et al.  Quantum Theory Needs No ‘Interpretation’ , 2000 .

[29]  César Massri,et al.  The Logos Categorical Approach to Quantum Mechanics: II. Quantum Superpositions and Intensive Values , 2019, International Journal of Theoretical Physics.

[30]  W. Mccrea Physical Reality , 1951, Nature.

[31]  J. Bell On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics , 1966 .

[32]  Horst Herrlich,et al.  Cartesian Closed Categories, Quasitopoi and Topological Universes , 1985, Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics.

[33]  C. J. Isham,et al.  Topos Perspective on the Kochen=nSpeckerTheorem: III. Von Neumann Algebras as theBase Category , 1999 .

[34]  Albert Einstein,et al.  Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? , 1935 .

[35]  J. D. Trimmer,et al.  THE PRESENT SITUATION IN QUANTUM MECHANICS: A TRANSLATION OF SCHR6DINGER'S "CAT PARADOX" PAPER , 2014 .

[36]  Benjamin Eva,et al.  Topos Theoretic Quantum Realism , 2016, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[37]  H. Weyl,et al.  Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science , 1950 .

[38]  Many worlds and modality in the interpretation of quantum mechanics: An algebraic approach , 2009, 0904.4666.

[39]  Andreas Doering The physical interpretation of daseinisation , 2010 .

[40]  S. Shostak Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science , 2013 .

[41]  C. Isham,et al.  Classical and quantum probabilities as truth values , 2011, 1102.2213.

[42]  Hector Freytes,et al.  Modal-type orthomodular logic , 2009, Math. Log. Q..

[43]  Hector Freytes,et al.  Contextual logic for quantum systems , 2005 .

[44]  Mauro Dorato Events and the Ontology of Quantum Mechanics , 2015 .

[45]  Correspondence Truth and Quantum Mechanics , 2014, 1504.01544.

[46]  C. Ronde Representational Realism, Closed Theories and the Quantum to Classical Limit , 2016, 1602.05405.

[47]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Do spins have directions? , 2015, Soft Comput..

[48]  The Relation Between Logic, Set Theory and Topos Theory as it Is Used by Alain Badiou , 2015 .

[49]  C. J. Isham,et al.  A topos foundation for theories of physics: I. Formal languages for physics , 2007 .

[50]  E. Schrödinger Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik , 1935, Naturwissenschaften.

[51]  G. Bacciagaluppi Did Bohr Understand EPR , 2014 .

[52]  D. Howard What Makes a Classical Concept Classical , 1994 .

[53]  Samson Abramsky,et al.  Categorical quantum mechanics , 2008, 0808.1023.

[54]  C. J. Isham Topos theory and consistent histories: The internal logic of the set of all consistent sets , 1996 .

[56]  C. J. Isham,et al.  Topos Perspective on the Kochen–Specker Theorem: IV. Interval Valuations , 2001 .

[57]  S. Lane Categories for the Working Mathematician , 1971 .

[58]  C. Ronde Immanent Powers versus Causal Powers (Propensities, Latencies and Dispositions) in Quantum Mechanics , 2017, 1711.02997.

[59]  Aleks Kissinger,et al.  Picturing Quantum Processes by Bob Coecke , 2017 .

[60]  N. Bohr II - Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? , 1935 .