- Submit
-
Browse
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- More
Switch to: References
Citations of:
Add citations
You must login to add citations.
|
|
|
In their seminal paper Birkhoff and von Neumann revealed the following dilemma:[ ] whereas for logicians the orthocomplementation properties of negation were the ones least able to withstand a critical analysis, the study of mechanics points to the distributive identities as the weakest link in the algebra of logic. |
|
|
|
|
|
We present a conceptual analysis of the notions of actual physical property and potential physical property as used by theoretical physicists/mathematicians working in the domain of operational quantum logic. We investigate how these notions are being used today and what role they play in the specified field of research. In order to do so, we will give a brief introduction to this area of research and explain it as a part of the discipline known as “mathematical metascience”. An in depth (...) |
|
|
The notion of coexistence between questions is introduced in the framework of Piron's approach to quantum physics, using Aerts' notion of performable-together questions. Relationships between coexistence of questions and Piron's compatibility of propositions are investigated. In particular, properties generated by coexistent and primitive questions are compatible. |
|
|
In their paper “A note on Misunderstandings of Piron's Axioms for Quantum Mechanics,” Foulis and Randall undertake a reply to our critique of Piron's “question-proposition system” (qp-s) which appeared in previous issues of this journal. In the present paper, we want briefly to refute the points of criticism raised by Foulis and Randall (FR). We argue that the “misunderstandings” are not ours, and we prove it. |
|
|
In the literature the work of C. Piron on OQL, “the operational quantum logic of the Geneva School”, has a few times been criticised. Those criticisms were often due to misunderstandings, as has already been pointed out in [19]. In this paper we follow the line of defense in favour of OQL by replying to the criticisms formulated some time ago in [4] and [17]. In order for the reader to follow our argumentation, we briefly analyze the basic conceptual machinery (...) |
|
|
|
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-c4c498947-mmzqd uwo