Quantum logic, is any use of logical reasoning inherently flawed?

[Windu Chi]

I pose this question, because I was reading a article about Quantum Logic.

That article explains that any use of classical logic should be suspected because Quantum Mechanics is not taken into account.

Quantum Mechanics: The branch of quantum physics that accounts for matter at the atomic level; that to understand the physics at that level one will have to use the Mathematics of Probability Theory and Statistics.

 

In my opinion I have the suspected belief, that because our consciousness as all matter in our local universe, functions on the physical laws of Quantum Mechanics.

 

That maybe all logical reasoning maybe inherently flawed, to a degree.

The so called, uncertainty principle asserts that it is impossible to measure both energy and time (or position and momentum) completely accurately at the same time, with infinite precision.

So any interpertation of data by our minds through any logical process will have to be suspected.

Also it can be best explained by way of the so called Copenhagen interpretation.

 

The interpretation, that if the wavefunction merely encodes an observer's knowledge of the universe then the wavefunction collapse corresponds to the receipt of new information.

Quantum mechanics provides probabilistic results because the physical universe is itself probabilistic rather than deterministic.

This process is known well to physictists in the world, as the wavefunction collapse.

The belief is that our consciousness causes the collapse, that inturn influence the logical reasoning process, so it spoils logic to a degree.

 

So, if we measure an observable or reason something, the wavefunction, will instantaneously be an influence structure of that observable, so it will bias objective reasoning.

The truth-values of the quantum logic system of reasoning will have 3 values instead of the 2 of classical logic.

The truth-values of quantum logic: true, false or indeterminate.

Indeterminate value will possibly come into conflict with classical logic, Law of the excluded middle, because the result must either be true or false.

A Indeterminate value will possibly give both true and false values at the same time.

 

The wavefunction is a physics concept, that is a mathematical equation in quantum mechanics, that represents the space and time variations in amplitude for a wave system.

And the eigenstate is a quantum state that is left unchanged after an observation corresponding to a particular operator(entity that represents or performs a mathematical operation).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic

But I am assuming nobody here don't trust that source.

It is accurate about the topic of Quantum Logic.

So, make your own choice of clicking the link.

Another link linked to the topic. Is logic empirical

[Prime]

Please post a link to this article, because what you have posted here has leaps all over the place.

[Jae Onasi]

The limit in reasoning is at a far higher/more macro level than quantum mechanics, it's limited by brain anatomy and physiology, biochemistry, and electrophysiology.

[Emperor Devon]

I don't see how another form of mathematics should make logical reasoning flawed. My answer is no.

[Windu Chi]

I don't see how another form of mathematics should make logical reasoning flawed. My answer is no.

Quantum Mechanics is not another form of mathematics, Devon.

It's physics not math.

So it probably will apply throughout this universe at least.

There is still the infinite universes in existence left to understand.

[Emperor Devon]

Quantum Mechanics is not another form of mathematics, Devon.

 

In mathematical physics and quantum mechanics, quantum logic is an operator algebraic system for constructing and manipulating logical combinations of quantum mechanical events.

 

It's physics not math.

 

Physics is based on math.

 

If you wouldn't mind, I'd like a more earthly explanation. "Infinite universes" sounds as vague as the supernatural. Given our current knowledge of this universe, it I find it unlikelly that we could apply one type of math to it, let alone any alternate ones (in the unlikely event they exist).

[Ray Jones]

Physics is totally not based on math. Like in all the other branches of science, math is used to find equations/solutions to describe physical processes.

 

And I find I unlikely that if you have 1 and add another 1 to it there wouldn't be 2 or that logic itself will be different.

[Windu Chi]

Physics is based on math.

You got it completely wrong, Devon.

Math is a tool of physics not the other way around.

Math is just a tool.

 

Physics explains the universe by understanding how all the matter and energy interact.

Physicists uses math as a tool to understand the universe precisely as possible with the current available mathematics.

 

If you wouldn't mind, I'd like a more earthly explanation. "Infinite universes" sounds as vague as the supernatural. Given our current knowledge of this universe, it I find it unlikelly that we could apply one type of math to it, let alone any alternate ones (in the unlikely event they exist).

There are infinite universes out there.

This is not supernatural it's science.

Because of String Theory and the so called Many-worlds hypothesis of Quantum Mechanics.

Physicists are accepting the possibility of other universes.

[Jae Onasi]

Physicists are accepting the possibility of other universes.

 

That's terrific, but in the meantime, we've been beamed down to this planet in this specific universe, so I'd like to work on this one first before taking on the project of dealing with another universe.

 

How does quantum mechanics have a bearing on logic if it's already affected to a much greater degree by anatomy and physiology of the brain? That's like saying a single raindrop has a major effect on something while in the middle of a major hurricane.

[Windu Chi]

That's terrific, but in the meantime, we've been beamed down to this planet in this specific universe, so I'd like to work on this one first before taking on the project of dealing with another universe.

 

How does quantum mechanics have a bearing on logic if it's already affected to a much greater degree by anatomy and physiology of the brain? That's like saying a single raindrop has a major effect on something while in the middle of a major hurricane.

Why are you asking me this, Jae?

This is not my theory.

I'm not the one pushing for the abandonment of any use of logic.

[Emperor Devon]

You got it completely wrong, Devon.

Math is a tool of physics not the other way around.

Math is just a tool.

 

Say what you will. Without math, there can't even be physics. I think that's enough to consider it a basis.

 

Physics explains the universe by understanding how all the matter and energy interact. Physicists uses math as a tool to understand the universe precisely as possible with the current available mathematics.

 

And to go back to your original point, how is that your ideas negate the use of logic?

 

There are infinite universes out there.

 

That and the link you provided are too vague for my liking. Given how we don't even fully understand our current universe, I think being able to profess knowledge of other ones is ridiculous to the extreme. It's like apes trying to predict how many miles long the Milky Way is.

[Jae Onasi]

Why are you asking me this, Jae?

This is not my theory.

I'm not the one pushing for the abandonment of any use of logic.

 

It may not be your theory, but since you said:

 

In my opinion I have the suspected belief, that because our consciousness as all matter in our local universe, functions on the physical laws of Quantum Mechanics.

your opinion is thus open for discussion/debate.

 

I'm arguing that quantum mechanics are a drop in the bucket of consciousness, logic, and other brain function because physiology has a much greater bearing on all of these than quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics therefore cannot be making much of a difference at all, if any.

[Windu Chi]

Say what you will. Without math, there can't even be physics. I think that's enough to consider it a basis.

Math is just tool, use to quantify physical interactions of matter and energy.

Without math we won't know how to build the technology we have today as of the result of the science of physics. Because we won't have the accurate values of matter and energy interactions to properly use physics in applications in our society.

 

 

 

And to go back to your original point, how is that your ideas negate the use of logic?

As I will say again this isn't my theory.

The reason I have the suspected belief because I believe absolutely nothing is impossible, so it might be a possibility.

In my very own opinion.

 

 

 

That and the link you provided are too vague for my liking. Given how we don't even fully understand our current universe, I think being able to profess knowledge of other ones is ridiculous to the extreme. It's like apes trying to predict how many miles long the Milky Way is.

Well, I'm sorry Devon.

But I like to think in terms of infinity.

Even if you or nobody else don't.

[Windu Chi]

your opinion is thus open for discussion/debate.

 

I'm arguing that quantum mechanics are a drop in the bucket of consciousness, logic, and other brain function because physiology has a much greater bearing on all of these than quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics therefore cannot be making much of a difference at all, if any.

I partially agree with you about human physiology, Jae.

Yes our physiology can be a limiting aspect in the use of logic as anything else that is limited for a human to accomplish because of our organic processes and biological functions.

But quantum mechanics is the determining factor for how all our minds functions.

Because our mind and thoughts functions by the physics of electromagnetism, which is subjected to the physics of quantum mechanics of the atoms and electrons that transmit the information entropy(a thermodynamic quantity representing the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work) in our neurons.

[Jae Onasi]

Because our mind and thoughts functions by the physics of electromagnetism, which is subjected to the physics of quantum mechanics of the atoms and electrons that transmit the information entropy(a thermodynamic quantity representing the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work) in our neurons.

 

The nerves do transmit information electically down the dendrites and out the axons, and I'm not debating whether or not there's electrical activity going on, because there obviously is. However, that activity is governed by things like opening and closing of sodium and calcium channels, the amount of myelin on the nerve (or lack thereof), axon length and amount of dendrite branching, amounts of neurotransmitters, and a number of other things that are greater in scope than what's happening at the quantum level.

[Windu Chi]

The nerves do transmit information electically down the dentrites and out the axons, and I'm not debating whether or not there's electrical activity going on, because there obviously is. However, that activity is governed by things like opening and closing of sodium and calcium channels, the amount of myelin on the nerve (or lack thereof), axon length and amount of dendrite branching, amounts of neurotransmitters, and a number of other things that are greater in scope than what's happening at the quantum level.

Thanks for re-educating me on how the brain transmit thoughts, Jae

I'm not being sarcastic here.

I just study mathematics and physics so often that I forget about neuroscience and other scientific topics sometimes.

 

Here is a short article, Jae about neuroscience that explains a theory called Quantum brain dynamics.

The article discusses a theory to explain the function of the brain with quantum mechanics.

This is a physics paper called Founding quantum theory on the basis of consciousness.

I already know you don't trust science papers that haven't been accepted yet.

But you should read those papers because they may have something very interesting in them, Jae.

[Ray Jones]

Yes our physiology can be a limiting aspect in the use of logic as anything else that is limited for a human to accomplish because of our organic processes and biological functions.

Basically we are not trained very well in imaginating things different from the world we are used to. More-than-three-dimensional rooms are a hard thing to visualise, if you don't actually live in one. So, the limitations of our mental capacity are *not* of physiological nature in the first place.

 

However, that activity is governed by things like opening and closing of sodium and calcium channels, the amount of myelin on the nerve (or lack thereof), axon length and amount of dendrite branching, amounts of neurotransmitters, and a number of other things that are greater in scope than what's happening at the quantum level.

I would not necessarily limit that "greater scope" to brain thingers only.. ;]

[Windu Chi]

Basically we are not trained very well in imaginating things different from the world we are used to. More-than-three-dimensional rooms are a hard thing to visualise, if you don't actually live in one. So, the limitations of our mental capacity are *not* of physiological nature in the first place.

Yes, I know that Ray.

The physical three dimensions of our local universe.

 

And also because of Matrix Theory(M-Theory) the 10 dimensions of space.

Where the 10-D is what strings need to oscillate properly to determine what Elementary particles

and the 4 forces of the universe, specific strings will be.

Open strings vibration modes can be identified as the graviton and Close strings

vibrational modes can be identified as: elementary particles, the strong nuclear force(the interaction that binds protons and neutrons together in the nuclei of atoms), weak nuclear force(responsible for certain kinds of radioactive decay) and electromagnetism.

 

I can possibly imagine 4-D of space:

If you live in four dimensions of space, from your perspective you will see the back the front and all sides of a three dimensional object at the same time.

But I have a hard time imagining 10-D space.

 

But String Theory is still a theory so we will have to see if it is true.

[Jae Onasi]

I would not necessarily limit that "greater scope" to brain thingers only.. ;]

 

No, it's not, but we're limited to 10k characters (and the reader's attention span) per post so I thought I'd keep it brief.

I doubt many here want to read reams on brain anatomy and physiology.

[Windu Chi]

I doubt many here want to read reams on brain anatomy and physiology.

I don't mind a refresher course on neuroscience, brain anatomy and physiology, Jae.

I don't back out on chance to learn about scientific topics.

But the mods might come in and say it will be off topic.

[jon_hill987]

That is a paradox because Quantum theory was discovered through logical reasoning, if logical reasoning is flawed so is Quantum theory and if Quantum theory is flawed logical reasoning may not be...

[Samuel Dravis]

That is a paradox because Quantum theory was discovered through logical reasoning, if logical reasoning is flawed so is Quantum theory and if Quantum theory is flawed logical reasoning may not be...

I'm not sure it would even matter. If it works, it works, and it can be used. It's not like you can prove the axioms you base your logic on anyway.

[Windu Chi]

That is a paradox because Quantum theory was discovered through logical reasoning, if logical reasoning is flawed so is Quantum theory and if Quantum theory is flawed logical reasoning may not be...

Well, with our universe being so strange with each new discovery about it's nature and the rest existence probably having even weirder characteristics,

paradoxes are probably the norm, Jon.

Also if there are infinite universes, the concept of infinity will always have contradictions; since all possibilities will happen in a infinite existence.

[Samuel Dravis]

If there are infinite universes then it is concievable that everything that can occur will. However, those universes don't have to have the same fundamental values. Gravity could be a stronger effect in one and not in another, etc. That doesn't mean they are contradictory. It just means they are different and have different laws governing them. That's why they're called "other universes."

[Windu Chi]

If there are infinite universes then it is concievable that everything that can occur will. However, those universes don't have to have the same fundamental values. Gravity could be a stronger effect in one and not in another, etc. That doesn't mean they are contradictory. It just means they are different and have different laws governing them. That's why they're called "other universes."

You are only considering a very, very small part of what I mean by infinite possibilities; with M Theory(Matrix Theory) spacial dimenisons lower then three maybe a physical reality; a contradiction from our common sense(or experience) of reality; many people think the concept of D<3 as a paradox to common experience of our 3-D universe.

Another example arithmetic operations like 3+3=6 in our universe, but in another universe 3+3=9 or 1+1=5 in which I mean mathematics might be set by the greater level of supreme beings in all of existence for every specific universe; that for any number n, n+n+3=p; if n=1 n+n+3=5 as above, this will always be the result in that specific universe.

So if you put up two fingers to signify the arithmetic operation of 1+1=2 in that strange universe of variable mathematics, three fingers will appear to signify the sum as 5.

An obvious contadiction and completely illogical to what the axioms of arithmetic says in our universe.

Strange, but that is what I mean by, ''all possibilities happen''.

Samuel!