Search

Abstract: Since he proved his theorem in 1982, Fine has been challenging the traditional interpretation of the experimental violation of the Bell Inequalities (BI). A natural interpretation of Fine''s theorem is that it provides us with an alternative set of assumptions on which to place blame for the failure of the BI, and opens to a new interpretation of the violation of the BI. Fine has a stronger interpretation for his theorem. He claims that his result undermines the traditional interpretation in terms of local realism. The aim of this paper is to understand and to assess Fine''s claim. We distinguish three different strategies that Fine uses in order to support his view. We show that none of these strategies is successful. Fine fails to prove that local realism is not at stake in the violation of the BI by quantum phenomena. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Statistical mechanics involves probabilities. At the same time, most approaches to the foundations of statistical mechanics—programs whose goal is to understand the macroscopic laws of thermal physics from the point of view of microphysics—are classical; they begin with the assumption that the underlying dynamical laws that govern the microscopic furniture of the world are (or can without loss of generality be treated as) deterministic. This raises some potential puzzles about the proper interpretation of these probabilities. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The curious correlations between distant events in quantum phenomena suggest the existence of non-local influences. Indeed, as John Bell demonstrated in his celebrated theorem, granted some plausible premises any quantum theory will predict the existence of such non-local influences. One of the theorem''s premises is that the probability distribution of states that systems may assume is independent of the measurements that they undergo at a later time. Retro-causal interpretations of quantum mechanics postulate backward influences from measurement events to the state of systems at an earlier time, and accordingly violate this premise. We argue that retro-causal interpretations predict the existence of closed causal loops, which pose challenges for the predictive and explanatory power of these interpretations. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Popper''s introduction of “propensity” was intended to provide a solid conceptual foundation for objective single-case probabilities. By considering the partly opposed contributions of Humphreys and Miller and Salmon, it is argued that when properly understood, propensities can in fact be understood as objective single-case causal probabilities of transitions between concrete events. The chief claim is that propensities are well-explicated by describing how they fit into the existing formal theory of branching space-times, which is simultaneously indeterministic and causal. Several problematic examples, some commonsense and some quantum-mechanical, are used to make clear the advantages of invoking branching space-times theory in coming to understand propensities. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]