TY - JOUR

T1 - Quantum mechanical unbounded operators and constructive mathematics - A rejoinder to bridges

AU - Hellman, Geoffrey

PY - 1997

Y1 - 1997

N2 - As argued in Hellman (1993), the theorem of Pour-El and Richards (1983) can be seen by the classicist as limiting constructivist efforts to recover the mathematics for quantum mechanics. Although Bridges (1995) may be right that the constructivist would work with a different definition of 'closed operator', this does not affect my point that neither the classical unbounded operators standardly recognized in quantum mechanics nor their restrictions to constructive arguments are recognizable as objects by the constructivist. Constructive substitutes that may still be possible necessarily involve additional 'incompleteness' in the mathematical representation of quantum phenomena. Concerning a second line of reasoning in Hellman (1993), its import is that constructivist practice is consistent with a 'liberal' stance but not with a 'radical', verificationist philosophical position. Whether such a position is actually espoused by certain leading constructivists, they are invited to clarify.

AB - As argued in Hellman (1993), the theorem of Pour-El and Richards (1983) can be seen by the classicist as limiting constructivist efforts to recover the mathematics for quantum mechanics. Although Bridges (1995) may be right that the constructivist would work with a different definition of 'closed operator', this does not affect my point that neither the classical unbounded operators standardly recognized in quantum mechanics nor their restrictions to constructive arguments are recognizable as objects by the constructivist. Constructive substitutes that may still be possible necessarily involve additional 'incompleteness' in the mathematical representation of quantum phenomena. Concerning a second line of reasoning in Hellman (1993), its import is that constructivist practice is consistent with a 'liberal' stance but not with a 'radical', verificationist philosophical position. Whether such a position is actually espoused by certain leading constructivists, they are invited to clarify.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0011623810&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0011623810&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1023/A:1017996604366

DO - 10.1023/A:1017996604366

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0011623810

VL - 26

SP - 121

EP - 127

JO - Journal of Philosophical Logic

JF - Journal of Philosophical Logic

SN - 0022-3611

IS - 2

ER -