Foundations of Physics

doi: 10.1007/BF01889647pmid: N/A

Jammer, Max

doi: 10.1007/BF01889648pmid: N/A

The eminent mathematical physicist Sir Hermann Bondi once said: “There is no more to science than its method, and there is no more to its method than Popper has said.” Indeed, many regard Sir Karl Raimund Popper the greatest philosopher of science in our generation. Much of what Popper “has said” refers to physics, but physicists, generally speaking, have little knowledge of what he has said. True, Popper's philosophy of science and, in particular, his realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics deviates considerably from the generally accepted doctrine. But as Popper, rightly I think, points out, it is precisely the proliferation of divergent theories which promotes the growth of scientific knowledge; it would be a danger for physics if physicists were dogmatically tied to a single theory or would not test their theory against alternatives. It is for this purpose that, on the occasion of the nonagenarian celebration of Popper's birthday, the present essay has been written.

Miller, David

doi: 10.1007/BF01889649pmid: N/A

Selleri, Franco; Merwe, Alwyn

doi: 10.1007/BF01889650pmid: N/A

On the occasion of his ninetieth birthday, Karl Popper's lifelong pursuit of answers in several areas of scientific and philosophical thinking is briefly traced, mainly with reference to excerpts from his own writings.

Mugur-Schächter, Mioara

doi: 10.1007/BF01889651pmid: N/A

An integrated view concerning the probabilistic organization of quantum mechanics is obtained by systematic confrontation of the Kolmogorov formulation of the abstract theory of probabilities, with the quantum mechanical representationand its factual counterparts. Because these factual counterparts possess a peculiar spacetime structure stemming from the operations by which the observer produces the studied states (operations of state preparation) and the qualifications of these (operations of measurement), the approach brings forth “probability trees,” complex constructs with treelike spacetime support.

Stapp, Henry

doi: 10.1007/BF01889652pmid: N/A

It is argued that an adequate scientific treatment of biological systems requires the use of an ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that the propensity interpretation proposed by Popper and others, when applied to the brain, leads to a natural representation of conscious process within the quantum-mechanical description of brain process. Thus quantum mechanics, unlike classical mechanics, has a natural place for consciousness and, moreover, in a sense to be discussed, even requires it.

Suppes, Patrick; Zanotti, Mario

doi: 10.1007/BF01889653pmid: N/A

We prove the existence of hidden variables, or, what we call generalized common causes, for finite sequences of pairwise correlated random variables that do not have a joint probability distribution. The hidden variables constructed have upper probability distributions that are nonmonotonic. The theorem applies directly to quantum mechanical correlations that do not satisfy the Bell inequalities.

Miller, David

doi: 10.1007/BF01889654pmid: N/A

The propensity interpretation of probability, bred by Popper in 1957(K. R. Popper, in Observation and Interpretation in the Philosophy of Physics,S. Körner, ed. (Butterworth, London, 1957, and Dover, New York, 1962), p. 65; reprinted in Popper Selections,D. W. Miller, ed. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1985), p. 199) from pure frequency stock, is the only extant objectivist account that provides any proper understanding of single-case probabilities as well as of probabilities in ensembles and in the long run. In Sec. 1 of this paper I recall salient points of the frequency interpretations of von Mises and of Popper himself, and in Sec. 2 I filter out from Popper's numerous expositions of the propensity interpretation its most interesting and fertile strain. I then go on to assess it. First I defend it, in Sec. 3, against recent criticisms(P. Humphreys, Philos. Rev.94,557 (1985); P. Milne, Erkenntnis25,129 (1986)) to the effect that conditional [or relative] probabilities, unlike absolute probabilities, can only rarely be made sense of as propensities. I then challenge its predominance, in Sec. 4, by outlining a rival theory: an irreproachably objectivist theory of probability, fully applicable to the single case, that interprets physical probabilities asinstantaneous frequencies.