David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 35 (2):101-111 (1968)
The aim of this paper is to present and discuss a probabilistic framework that is adequate for the formulation of quantum theory and faithful to its applications. Contrary to claims, which are examined and rebutted, that quantum theory employs a nonclassical probability theory based on a nonclassical "logic," the probabilistic framework set out here is entirely classical and the "logic" used is Boolean. The framework consists of a set of states and a set of quantities that are interrelated in a specified manner. Each state induces a classical probability space on the values of each quantity. The quantities, so considered, become statistical variables (not random variables). Such variables need not have a "joint distribution." For the quantum theoretic application, there is a uniform procedure that defines and determines the existence of such "joint distributions" for statistical variables. A general rule is provided and it is shown to lead to the usual compatibility-commutivity requirements of quantum theory. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of interference and the misunderstandings that are involved in the false move from interference to nonclassical probability
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Arthur Fine (1974). On the Completeness of Quantum Theory. Synthese 29 (1-4):257 - 289.
Richard Schlegel (1970). Statistical Explanation in Physics: The Copenhagen Interpretation. Synthese 21 (1):65 - 82.
Soazig Le Bihan (2009). Fine's Ways to Fail to Secure Local Realism. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 40 (2):142-150.
Soazig Le Bihan (2009). Fine Ways to Fail to Secure Local Realism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 40 (2):142-150.
Similar books and articles
Patrick Suppes & Stephan Hartmann (2010). Entanglement, Upper Probabilities and Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics. In M. Suaráz et al (ed.), EPSA Philosophical Issues in the Sciences: Launch of the European Philosophy of Science Association. Springer 93--103.
John F. Halpin (1991). What is the Logical Form of Probability Assignment in Quantum Mechanics? Philosophy of Science 58 (1):36-60.
Meir Hemmo (2007). Quantum Probability and Many Worlds. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 38 (2):333-350.
L. Hardy (2003). Probability Theories in General and Quantum Theory in Particular. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 34 (3):381-393.
Peter Milne (1993). The Foundations of Probability and Quantum Mechanics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 22 (2):129 - 168.
John C. Bigelow (1979). Quantum Probability in Logical Space. Philosophy of Science 46 (2):223-243.
Leon Cohen (1966). Can Quantum Mechanics Be Formulated as a Classical Probability Theory? Philosophy of Science 33 (4):317-322.
Florentin Smarandache, An Introduction to the Neutrosophic Probability Applied to Quantum Physics: Revisited.
E. G. Beltrametti & S. Bugajski (2002). Quantum Mechanics and Operational Probability Theory. Foundations of Science 7 (1-2):197-212.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads58 ( #69,823 of 1,789,824 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #315,587 of 1,789,824 )
How can I increase my downloads?