Online research in philosophy

The paper develops models of statistical experiments that combine propensities with frequencies, the underlying theory being the branching space-times (BST) of Belnap (1992). The models are then applied to analyze Bell's theorem. We prove the so-called Bell-CH inequality via the assumptions of a BST version of Outcome Independence and of (non-probabilistic) No Conspiracy. Notably, neither the condition of probabilistic No Conspiracy nor the condition of Parameter Independence is needed in the proof. As the Bell-CH inequality is most likely experimentally falsified, the choice is this: contrary to the appearances, experimenters cannot choose some measurement settings, or some transitions, with spacelike related initial events, are correlated; or both.

The paper extends the framework of outcomes in branching space-time (Kowalski and Placek [1999]) by assigning probabilities to outcomes of events, where these probabilities are interpreted either epistemically or as weighted possibilities. In resulting models I define the notion of common cause of correlated outcomes of a single event, and investigate which setups allow for the introduction of common causes. It turns out that a deterministic common cause can always be introduced, but (surprisingly) only special setups permit the introduction of truly stochastic common causes. I analyse next the Bell-Aspect experiment and derive the Bell-CH inequalities. I observe that we postulate there not a common cause for outcomes of a single event but rather a common common cause that accounts for outcomes of many events, where 'events' mean 'measurements with (different) directions of polarization'. Since the inequalities are violated, I claim that no causal story can be told about the Bell correlations, where causality is subliminal and restricted by screening-off condition. Similarly, given certain intuitive principles, no deterministic story can be told about these correlations.

Let T be a complete countable first order theory and λ an uncountable cardinal. Theorem 1. If T is not superstable, T has 2 λ resplendent models of power λ. Theorem 2. If T is strictly superstable, then T has at least $\min(2^\lambda,\beth_2)$ resplendent models of power λ. Theorem 3. If T is not superstable or is small and strictly superstable, then every resplendent homogeneous model of T is saturated. Theorem 4 (with Knight). For each μ ∈ ω ∪ {ω, 2 ω } there is a recursive theory in a finite language which has μ resplendent models of power κ for every infinite κ.

Let n be a positive integer. By a $\beta_{n}-model$ we mean an $\omega-model$ which is elementary with respect to $\sigma_{n}^{1}$ formulas. We prove the following $\beta_{n}-model$ version of $G\ddot{o}del's$ Second Incompleteness Theorem. For any recursively axiomatized theory S in the language of second order arithmetic, if there exists a $\beta_{n}-model$ of S, then there exists a $\beta_{n}-model$ of S + "there is no countable $\beta_{n}-model$ of S". We also prove a $\beta_{n}-model$ version of $L\ddot{o}b's$ Theorem. As a corollary, we obtain a $\beta_{n}-model$ which is not a $\beta_{n+1}-model$.

Let I(μ,K) denote the number of nonisomorphic models of power μ and IE(μ,K) the number of nonmutually embeddable models. We define in this paper the notion of a diverse class and use it to prove a number of results. The major result is Theorem B: For any diverse class K and μ greater than the cardinality of the language of K, $\mathbf{IE}(\mu,K) \geq \min(2^\mu,\beth_2).$ From it we deduce both an old result of Shelah, Theorem C: If T is countable and $\lambda_0 > \aleph_0$ then for every $\mu > \aleph_0,\mathbf{IE}(\mu,T) \geq \min(2^\mu,\beth_2)$ , and an extension of that result to uncountable languages, Theorem D: If $|T| |T|$ , and |D(T)| = |T| then for $\mu > |T|$ , $\mathbf{IE}(\mu,T) \geq \min(2^\mu,\beth_2).$.

Deterministic models in population dynamics often are really approximations to stochastic models, justified by an appeal to the law of large numbers. It is proposed to call such models pseudodeterministic. Four questions are discussed in this article: (1) What errors may be made by equating deterministically predicted values to expectations? (2) When, and in what sense, may numbers be assumed to be large? (3) How large are the variances, coefficients of variations, etc., as assigned to the variables in the stochastic versions of the models? (4) What role may pseudodeterministic models play in empirical research, where problems of statistical reliability arise?As an example, a modified Nicholson-Bailey model of the interaction between insect parasitoids and their hosts is discussed; the modification consists of assigning a random (density-independent) mortality to the parasitoid population. A stochastic version of this model is discussed. The expectation of the final host density is compared with the value computed from the deterministic model. The latter value is systematically lower than the former. The magnitude of the difference depends on parameter values. The variability to be expected with the stochastic model is characterized by the coefficient of variation of the final host density; its dependence on parameter values and initial conditions is discussed. It is concluded that it is worthwhile in practical applications to estimate parasitoid mortality, and that the coefficient of variation in real situations may be far from negligible.

A deterministic model that accounts for the statistical behavior of random samples of identical particles is presented. The model is based on some nonmeasurable distribution of spin values in all directions. The mathematical existence of such distributions is proved by set-theoretical techniques, and the relation between these distributions and observed frequencies is explored within an appropriate extension of probability theory. The relation between quantum mechanics and the model is specified. The model is shown to be consistent with known polarization phenomena and the existence of macroscopic magnetism. Finally..

The interpretation of quantum mechanics has been a problem since its founding days. A large contribution to the discussion of possible interpretations of quantum mechanics is given by the so-called impossibility proofs for hidden variable models; models that allow a realist interpretation. In this thesis some of these proofs are discussed, like von Neumann’s Theorem, the Kochen-Specker Theorem and the Bell-inequalities. Some more recent developments are also investigated, like Meyer’s nullification of the Kochen-Specker Theorem, the MKC-models and Conway and Kochen’s Free Will Theorem. This last one is taken to suggest that the problems that arise for certain interpretations of quantum mechanics are not limited to realist interpretations only, but also affect certain instrumentalist interpretations. It is argued that one may arrive at a more satisfying interpretation of quantum mechanics if one adopts a logic that seems more compatible with the instrumentalist viewpoint namely, intuitionistic logic. The motivations for adopting this form of logic rather than classical logic or quantum logic are linked to some of the philosophical ideas of Bohr. In particular a new interpretation of Bohr’s notion of complementarity is proposed. Finally some possibilities are explored for linking the intuitionistic interpretation of quantum mechanics to the mathematical formalism of the theory.

I compare deterministic and stochastic hidden variable models of the Bell experiment, exphasising philosophical distinctions between the various ways of combining conditionals and probabilities. I make four main claims. (1) Under natural assumptions, locality as it occurs in these models is equivalent to causal independence, as analysed (in the spirit of Lewis) in terms of probabilities and conditionals. (2) Stochastic models are indeed more general than deterministic ones. (3) For factorizable stochastic models, relativity's lack of superluminal causation does not favour locality over completeness. (4) If we prohibit all superluminal causation, then the violation of the Bell inequality teaches us a lesson, besides quantum mechanics' familiar ones that quantities can lack precise values and that pairs of quantities can lack joint probabilities: namely, some pairs of events are not screened off by their common past.

The two theories that revolutionized physics in the twentieth century, relativity and quantum mechanics, are full of predictions that defy common sense. Recently, we used three such paradoxical ideas to prove “The Free Will Theorem” (strengthened here), which is the culmination of a series of theorems about quantum mechanics that began in the 1960s. It asserts, roughly, that if indeed we humans have free will, then elementary particles already have their own small share of this valuable commodity. More precisely, if the experimenter can freely choose the directions in which to orient his apparatus in a certain measurement, then the particle’s response (to be pedantic—the universe’s response near the particle) is not determined by the entire previous history of the universe. Our argument combines the well-known consequence of relativity theory, that the time order of space-like separated events is not absolute, with the EPR paradox discovered by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in 1935, and the Kochen-Specker Paradox of 1967 (See [2].) We follow Bohm in using a spin version of EPR and Peres in using his set of 33 directions, rather than the original configuration used by Kochen and Specker. More contentiously, the argument also involves the notion of free will, but we postpone further discussion of this to the last section of the article. Note that our proof does not mention “probabilities” or the “states” that determine them, which is..