= the collapse of the wave-function in observation—or in

*writing*, the assumption that you must reduce your argument to a singular position.

Cf. Kochen & Specker (1967): every statement about a quantum system must

a. rely on a host of assumptions, and/or

b. refuse to obey the standard rules of logic (which are distributive and use the Boolean operators "and," "or," and "not").

Standard logic and mathematics fit the topos of set theory. (They are

*straight*.)

Quantum logics do not. (They are fuzzy and

*strange.*)

Isham has identified the topos of quantum theory, the logic of which serves for the quantum

*and*real worlds, i.e. it is distributive (C. J. Isham and J. Butterfield, "Some Possible Roles for Topos Theory in Quantum Theory and Quantum Gravity," Found. Phys. 30.10 (2000): 1707-35).

But, rather than finding a topos that

*fits*(inductively [yields a

*law*]), we can also

*opt for*a certain topos (abductively [yields a

*hypothesis*or possibility]). (See Robert Matthews, "Impossible Things for Breakfast, at the Logic CafĂ©," New Scientist [14 April 2007], online at <http://fastblogit.com/media/logic_cafe.html>.)

That would allow us to assume a partial truth to be true—or a

*hypertopia*to exist as a genuine possibility.

## No comments:

Post a Comment