A Conflict Tolerant Logic of Explicit Evidence

Standard epistemic modal logic is unable to adequately deal with the FrauchigerRenner paradox in quantum physics. We introduce a novel justification logic CTJ, in which the paradox can be formalized without leading to an inconsistency. Still CTJ is strong enough to model traditional epistemic reasoning. Our logic tolerates two different pieces of evidence such that one piece justifies a proposition and the other piece justifies the negation of that proposition. However, our logic disallows one piece of evidence to justify both a proposition and its negation. We present syntax and semantics for CTJ and discuss its basic properties. Then we give an example of epistemic reasoning in CTJ that illustrates how the different principles of CTJ interact. We continue with the formalization of the Frauchiger–Renner thought experiment and discuss it in detail. Further, we add a trust axiom to CTJ and again discuss epistemic reasoning and the paradox in this extended setting.

[1]  K. Arrow.  A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare , 1950, Journal of Political Economy.

[2]  S. Artemov.  Explicit Provability and Constructive Semantics , 2001, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic.

[3]  Melvin Fitting,et al.  The logic of proofs, semantically , 2005, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[4]  Roman Kuznets,et al.  Making knowledge explicit: How hard it is , 2006, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[5]  Sergei N. Artëmov.  Justified common knowledge , 2006, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[6]  Tatiana Yavorskaya,et al.  Interacting Explicit Evidence Systems , 2008, Theory of Computing Systems.

[7]  David J. Chalmers,et al.  Two-dimensional semantics , 2008 .

[8]  Sergei N. Artëmov.  THE LOGIC OF JUSTIFICATION , 2008, The Review of Symbolic Logic.

[9]  Thomas Studer,et al.  Justifications for common knowledge , 2010, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[10]  Thomas Studer,et al.  Justifications, Ontology, and Conservativity , 2012, Advances in Modal Logic.

[11]  Thomas Studer.  Decidability for some justification logics with negative introspection , 2013, J. Symb. Log..

[12]  Thomas Studer,et al.  Realizing public announcements by justifications , 2014, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[13]  Thomas Studer,et al.  Censors for Boolean Description Logic , 2014, Trans. Data Priv..

[14]  Thomas Studer,et al.  Weak arithmetical interpretations for the Logic of Proofs , 2016, Log. J. IGPL.

[15]  Jennifer Nacht,et al.  Modal Logic An Introduction , 2016 .

[16]  Fan Yang,et al.  Dependence and Independence in Social Choice: Arrow's Theorem , 2016, Dependence Logic.

[17]  Melvin Fitting,et al.  Modal logics, justification logics, and realization , 2016, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[18]  R. Renner,et al.  Single-world interpretations of quantum theory cannot be self-consistent , 2016 .

[19]  Lídia del Rio,et al.  Inadequacy of modal logic in quantum settings , 2018, QPL.

[20]  Federico L. G. Faroldi,et al.  A hyperintensional logical framework for deontic reasons , 2019, Log. J. IGPL.

[21]  Dustin Lazarovici,et al.  How Quantum Mechanics can consistently describe the use of itself , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[22]  Sergei N. Artëmov,et al.  Justification Logic: Reasoning with Reasons , 2019 .

[23]  Thomas Studer,et al.  Subset Models for Justification Logic , 2019, WoLLIC.

[24]  Thomas Studer,et al.  No-Go Theorems for Data Privacy , 2020, ArXiv.

[25]  Thomas Studer,et al.  Belief Expansion in Subset Models , 2020, LFCS.

[26]  Meghdad Ghari,et al.  Impossible and Conflicting Obligations in Justification Logic , 2023, DEON.