The foundations of probability and quantum mechanics

Taking as starting point two familiar interpretations of probability, we develop these in a perhaps unfamiliar way to arrive ultimately at an improbable claim concerning the proper axiomatization of probability theory: the domain of definition of a point-valued probability distribution is an orthomodular partially ordered set. Similar claims have been made in the light of quantum mechanics but here the motivation is intrinsically probabilistic. This being so the main task is to investigate what light, if any, this sheds on quantum mechanics. In particular it is important to know under what conditions these point-valued distributions can be thought of as derived from distribution-pairs of upper and lower probabilities on boolean algebras. Generalising known results this investigation unsurprisingly proves unrewarding. In the light of this failure the next topic investigated is how these generalized probability distributions are to be interpreted.     

The experiential foundations of mathematical knowledge

A view of the sources of mathematical knowledge is sketched which emphasizes the close connections between mathematical and empirical knowledge. A platonistic interpretation of mathematical discourse is adopted throughout. Two skeptical views are discussed and rejected. One of these, due to Maturana, is supposed to be based on biological considerations. The other, due to Dummett, is derived from a Wittgensteinian position in the philosophy of language. The paper ends with an elaboration of Gödel's analogy between the mathematician and the physicist.     

The problem of properties in quantum mechanics

The properties of classical and quantum systems are characterized by different algebraic structures. We know that the properties of a quantum mechanical system form a partial Boolean algebra not embeddable into a Boolean algebra, and so cannot all be co-determinate. We also know that maximal Boolean subalgebras of properties can be (separately) co-determinate. Are there larger subsets of properties that can be co-determinate without contradiction? Following an analysis of Bohrs response to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen objection to the complementarity interpretation of quantum mechanics, a principled argument is developed justifying the selection of particular subsets of properties as co-determinate for a quantum system in particular physical contexts. These subsets are generated by sets of maximal Boolean subalgebras, defined in each case by the relation between the quantum state and a measurement (possibly, but not necessarily, the measurement in terms of which we seek to establish whether or not a particular property of the system in question obtains). If we are required to interpret quantum mechanics in this way, then predication for quantum systems is quite unlike the corresponding notion for classical systems.     

The single-mind and many-minds versions of quantum mechanics

There is a long tradition of trying to find a satisfactory interpretation of Everett's relative-state formulation of quantum mechanics. Albert and Loewer recently described two new ways of reading Everett: one we will call the single-mind theory and the other the many-minds theory. I will briefly describe these theories and present some of their merits and problems. Since both are no-collapse theories, a significant merit is that they can take advantage of certain properties of the linear dynamics, which Everett apparently considered to be important, to constrain their statistical laws.     

Speakable in quantum mechanics

At the 1927 Como conference Bohr spoke the famous words “It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.” However, if the Copenhagen interpretation really adheres to this motto, why then is there this nagging feeling of conflict when comparing it with realist interpretations? Surely what one can say about nature should in a certain sense be interpretation independent. In this paper I take Bohr’s motto seriously and develop a quantum logic that avoids assuming any form of realism as much as possible. To illustrate the non-triviality of this motto, a similar result is first derived for classical mechanics. It turns out that the logic for classical mechanics is a special case of the quantum logic thus derived. Some hints are provided as to how these logics are to be used in practical situations and finally, I discuss how some realist interpretations relate to these logics.     

Quantities in quantum mechanics

The problem of the failure of value definiteness (VD) for the idea of quantity in quantum mechanics is stated, and what VD is and how it fails is explained. An account of quantity, called BP, is outlined and used as a basis for discussing the problem. Several proposals are canvassed in view of, respectively, Forrest's indeterminate particle speculation, the "standard" interpretation of quantum mechanics and Bub's modal interpretation.     

How to interpret quantum mechanics

I formulate the interpretation problem of quantum mechanics as the problem of identifying all possible maximal sublattices of quantum propositions that can be taken as simultaneously determinate, subject to certain constraints that allow the representation of quantum probabilities as measures over truth possibilities in the standard sense, and the representation of measurements in terms of the linear dynamics of the theory. The solution to this problem yields a modal interpretation that I show to be a generalized version of Bohm's hidden variable theory. I argue that unless we alter the dynamics of quantum mechanics, or accept a for all practical purposes solution, this generalized Bohmian mechanics is the unique solution to the problem of interpretation.     

On the nature of quantum mechanics

Summary It is argued that the EPR paradox cannot be resolved in the context of quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is shown to be equivalent to a Belinfante theory of zero type. It is concluded therefore that it cannot have as wide a range of applicability in excluding Hidden Variable Theories as commonly alleged. It follows that standard quantum mechanics should not be regarded as a complete theory in Einstein's sense. Indeed, it is argued that a purely probabilistic theory cannot be the basis of a comprehensive understanding of physics. An attempt is made to formulate a deterministic, local Hidden Variable Theory to account for the Bohm-Einstein thought experiment reproducing quantum mechanical predictions.     

The suggestive properties of quantum mechanics without the collapse postulate

Everett proposed resolving the quantum measurement problem by dropping the nonlinear collapse dynamics from quantum mechanics and taking what is left as a complete physical theory. If one takes such a proposal seriously, then the question becomes how much of the predictive and explanatory power of the standard theory can one recover without the collapse postulate and without adding anything else. Quantum mechanics without the collapse postulate has several suggestive properties, which we will consider in some detail. While these properties are not enough to make it acceptable given the usual standards for a satisfactory physical theory, one might want to exploit these properties to cook up a satisfactory no-collapse formulation of quantum mechanics. In considering how this might work, we will see why any no-collapse theory must generally fail to satisfy at least one of two plausible-sounding conditions.     

Everettian quantum mechanics without branching time

In this paper I assess the prospects for combining contemporary Everettian quantum mechanics (EQM) with branching-time semantics in the tradition of Kripke, Prior, Thomason and Belnap. I begin by outlining the salient features of ??decoherence-based?? EQM, and of the ??consistent histories?? formalism that is particularly apt for conceptual discussions in EQM. This formalism permits of both ??branching worlds?? and ??parallel worlds?? interpretations; the metaphysics of EQM is in this sense underdetermined by the physics. A prominent argument due to Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds, 1986) supports the non-branching interpretation. Belnap et?al. (Facing the Future: Agents and Choices in Our Indeterministic World, 2001) refer to Lewis?? argument as the ??Assertion problem??, and propose a pragmatic response to it. I argue that their response is unattractively ad hoc and complex, and that it prevents an Everettian who adopts branching-time semantics from making clear sense of objective probability. The upshot is that Everettians are better off without branching-time semantics. I conclude by discussing and rejecting an alternative possible motivation for branching time.