Hi Bruno,

ok, I have not yet had the time to study modal logic (it is on my list, 
but intermediate future). Thanks for the Goldblatt reference.

The paper is not online, but I found it in this book which is at our 
University Library, maybe interesting also for other people:

Goldblatt, Mathematics of Modality


(the book contains the full paper)


Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2009, at 22:04, Günther Greindl wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> the question goes primarily to Bruno but all other input is  
>> welcome :-))
>> Bruno, you said you have already arrived at a quantum logic in your
>> technical work?
> Yes.  The hypostases, with p restrict to the Sigma-1 sentences (the  
> UD)  given by
> Bp & p  (the knower certainty)
> Bp & Dp (the observer certainty)
> Bp & Dp & p (the "feeler" certainty), with B the Godel Beweisbar  
> predicate, and Da = ~B~a.
> gives rise to Brouwersche like modal logics with natural quantization  
> (BDp) which act like quantum projector, except that I loose the  
> Brouwersche necessitation rule, which formally makes things more  
> complex, more rich also.
>> May I refer to the following two paragraphs?:
>> We can read here:
>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantlog/
>> The Reconstruction of QM
>> From the single premise that the “experimental propositions”  
>> associated
>> with a physical system are encoded by projections in the way indicated
>> above, one can reconstruct the rest of the formal apparatus of quantum
>> mechanics. The first step, of course, is Gleason's theorem, which  
>> tells
>> us that probability measures on L(H) correspond to density operators.
>> There remains to recover, e.g., the representation of “observables” by
>> self-adjoint operators, and the dynamics (unitary evolution). The  
>> former
>> can be recovered with the help of the Spectral theorem and the latter
>> with the aid of a deep theorem of E. Wigner on the projective
>> representation of groups. See also R. Wright [1980]. A detailed  
>> outline
>> of this reconstruction (which involves some distinctly non-trivial
>> mathematics) can be found in the book of Varadarajan [1985]. The point
>> to bear in mind is that, once the quantum-logical skeleton L(H) is in
>> place, the remaining statistical and dynamical apparatus of quantum
>> mechanics is essentially fixed. In this sense, then, quantum  
>> mechanics —
>> or, at any rate, its mathematical framework — reduces to quantum logic
>> and its attendant probability theory.
> Very nice text. I agree, but it is a difficult matter. You can extract  
> the quantum of 1 bit, but the quibit needs a good tensor product,  
> which is not easy to derive (unless in ad hoc way) from quantum logic.
> With comp, I think we will need the first order extension of the  
> "hypostases", and it could be that special feature of computability  
> theory will need to be discovered to complete the derivation. In my  
> 1991 paper I sum by saying that comp is in search of its Gleason  
> theorem".  A lot of work remains, of course.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to