On the exclusion of the excluded middle law and quantum mechanics

We argue that limitations arise when using non-constructive mathematics (NCM) as a foundation for quantum mechanics, since the Boolean logical substrate of NCM fits a distributive propositional structure, but fits less naturally into the non-distributive lattice of quantum propositions. We distinguish three logical structures relevant to this discussion: Boolean algebras (classical, distributive, complemented), Heyting algebras (constructive, distributive, not necessarily complemented), and orthomodular lattices (quantum, non-distributive). The linear structure of quantum state space is compatible with NCM, but the propositional structure of quantum mechanics forms a non-distributive lattice rather than a Boolean algebra. Topos theory, one of the models of constructive mathematics, offers a way forward: the Döring–Isham framework provides an explicit bridge—the daseinization map—from quantum propositions to a topos whose internal logic is intuitionistic. Although some topoi carry Boolean logic, in general, topoi are not constrained to it. We argue that this bridged framework is more suitable for the mathematical foundation of quantum mechanics than one that retains the law of excluded middle (LEM) without such a bridge. Our discussion centers on the pivotal role of the LEM.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Academia quantum.
Published
2026-09-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.20935/acadquant8546
Primary Topic
Computability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

On the exclusion of the excluded middle law and quantum mechanics

M. Esfahanian, Lodewijk Arntzen
Academia quantum.
Computability, Logic, AI Algorithms
article

On the exclusion of the excluded middle law and quantum mechanics

M. Esfahanian, Lodewijk Arntzen
article en

Abstract

We argue that limitations arise when using non-constructive mathematics (NCM) as a foundation for quantum mechanics, since the Boolean logical substrate of NCM fits a distributive propositional structure, but fits less naturally into the non-distributive lattice of quantum propositions. We distinguish three logical structures relevant to this discussion: Boolean algebras (classical, distributive, complemented), Heyting algebras (constructive, distributive, not necessarily complemented), and orthomodular lattices (quantum, non-distributive). The linear structure of quantum state space is compatible with NCM, but the propositional structure of quantum mechanics forms a non-distributive lattice rather than a Boolean algebra. Topos theory, one of the models of constructive mathematics, offers a way forward: the Döring–Isham framework provides an explicit bridge—the daseinization map—from quantum propositions to a topos whose internal logic is intuitionistic. Although some topoi carry Boolean logic, in general, topoi are not constrained to it. We argue that this bridged framework is more suitable for the mathematical foundation of quantum mechanics than one that retains the law of excluded middle (LEM) without such a bridge. Our discussion centers on the pivotal role of the LEM.

Academia quantum.Vol. 3(3)
Turin Polytechnic University (UZ), The Hague University of Applied Sciences (NL), Delft University of Technology (NL)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 100%
Computability, Logic, AI Algorithms
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

On the exclusion of the excluded middle law and quantum mechanics — M. Esfahanian, Lodewijk Arntzen · Academia quantum. (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS