tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post4064549726929307160..comments2015-09-13T21:38:32.218-07:00Comments on (Blog&~Blog): Quantum Logic, Part I of IVBenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06702722560438833244noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post-7182057245255647882010-10-02T11:28:10.938-07:002010-10-02T11:28:10.938-07:00Hi, although I'm only a novice when it comes t...Hi, although I'm only a novice when it comes to thinking about QM subject matter, I find the following two quotes from your blog very interesting: <br /><br />(1)...My interest in quantum logic is specifically on the question of whether the best explanation of the relevant physics might involve rejecting some of our current ideas about logical truth...<br /><br />(2)...It seems terribly implausible that experimental results about esoteric sub-atomic phenomena should show us that we were mistaken about the meaning of the terms "and" and "or."<br /><br />Being mistaken about the meaning of the terms "and" and "or," at the quantum level, it seems to me, only secures our current ideas about logical truth. <br /><br />For instance, in terms of holism, what if our current ideas about logical truth are a consequence of holism? <br /><br />And, what if, as a consequence of holism at the quantum level,"and" and "or," logically speaking, become permutations of ~~b, (being what is not while not being what is), and further, <br /><br />what if, after achieving sufficient complexity, ~~b ends up in the higher permutation of b~b~bb, a permutation that not only implies holism, but also implies the truth-preserving inferences that we have come to identify as logical truths? <br /><br />The above considerations motivated my comment. As I said, I'm just a person who likes to think about QM. If you're interested in more, I also have a blog. Thanks for letting me comment. <br /><br />http://bwinwnbwi.wordpress.com/davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06077781459115019995noreply@blogger.com