David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In M. Suaráz et al (ed.), EPSA Philosophical Issues in the Sciences: Launch of the European Philosophy of Science Association. Springer. 93--103 (2010)
Quantum mechanical entangled configurations of particles that do not satisfy Bell’s inequalities, or equivalently, do not have a joint probability distribution, are familiar in the foundational literature of quantum mechanics. Nonexistence of a joint probability measure for the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics is itself equivalent to the nonexistence of local hidden variables that account for the correlations (for a proof of this equivalence, see Suppes and Zanotti, 1981). From a philosophical standpoint it is natural to ask what sort of concept can be used to provide a “joint” analysis of such quantum correlations. In other areas of application of probability, similar but different problems arise. A typical example is the introduction of upper and lower probabilities in the theory of belief. A person may feel uncomfortable assigning a precise probability to the occurrence of rain tomorrow, but feel comfortable saying the probability should be greater than ½ and less than ⅞. Rather extensive statistical developments have occurred for this framework. A thorough treatment can be found in Walley (1991) and an earlier measurement-oriented development in Suppes (1974). It is important to note that this focus on beliefs, or related Bayesian ideas, is not concerned, as we are here, with the nonexistence of joint probability distributions. Yet earlier work with no relation to quantum mechanics, but focused on conditions for existence has been published by many people. For some of our own work on this topic, see Suppes and Zanotti (1989). Still, this earlier work naturally suggested the question of whether or not upper and lower measures could be used in quantum mechanics, as a generalization of..
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Neal Grossman (1972). Quantum Mechanics and Interpretations of Probability Theory. Philosophy of Science 39 (4):451-460.
Patrick Suppes (1961). Probability Concepts in Quantum Mechanics. Philosophy of Science 28 (4):378-389.
Meir Hemmo (2007). Quantum Probability and Many Worlds. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 38 (2):333-350.
Guillaume Adenier (ed.) (2007). Quantum Theory, Reconsideration of Foundations 4: Växjö (Sweden), 11-16 June, 2007. American Institute of Physics.
Patrick Suppes (1966). The Probabilistic Argument for a Non-Classical Logic of Quantum Mechanics. Philosophy of Science 33 (1/2):14-21.
Peter J. Lewis (2010). Probability in Everettian Quantum Mechanics. Manuscrito 33:285--306.
David Wallace, Implications of Quantum Theory in the Foundations of Statistical Mechanics [2001 Online-Only].
Angelo Bassi (ed.) (2006). Quantum Mechanics: Are There Quantum Jumps? Trieste, Italy, 5 Spetember -2005 and on the Present Status of Quantum Mechanics Lošinj, Croatia 7-9 September 2005. [REVIEW] American Institute of Physics.
John F. Halpin (1991). What is the Logical Form of Probability Assignment in Quantum Mechanics? Philosophy of Science 58 (1):36-60.
Peter Milne (1993). The Foundations of Probability and Quantum Mechanics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 22 (2):129 - 168.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads126 ( #6,671 of 1,096,548 )
Recent downloads (6 months)21 ( #5,546 of 1,096,548 )
How can I increase my downloads?