[extropy-chat] Popper and QT

[scerir]

> > I do not remember what Popper wrote about probability.

[gts:]
> Here's a bit of Popper on the subject, in which he writes of his disdain
> for subjectivist interpretations of probability:
> "Though things have improved since then [1944], subjectivism is still
> rampant in the philosophy of science, and especially in the field of
> probability. The subjectivist theory of probability, which interprets
> degrees of probability as degrees of rational belief, stems directly from
> the subjectivist approach to truth -- especially from the coherence
> theory."

I would say that I do not even remember
what the probability is. I vaguely remember
that von Weizsaecker wrote (in 'Zeit und Wissen')
that probability is 'the expectation value of
the relative frequency'. It seems a perfect
mix of subjectivism and frequentism.
It is possible that theories (like SR and QM)
made of principles and operations (or measurements),
need a certain quantity of subjectivism. While in SR
there is a diffeomorphism covariance (invariance of 
physical laws under arbitrary coordinate transformations), 
in QM there are several conceptual problems, i.e.
when two independent observers measure a quantum
system. 

[Max Born here:]
> > I personally like to regard a probability wave, even in 3N-dimensional
> > space, as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical
> > calculations ..."Quite generally, how could
> > we rely on probability predictions if by this notion we
> > do not refer to something real and objective?'

[gts:]
> Offhand I'd say Popper would agree with [...] Born here.

Yes. The problem is that very often Born did not
agree with himself, about the _possible_ 'ontic'
content of quantum states. This (the ontology)
is still a huge problem, as you can read on this
interesting page of the 'quantum-quandaries' blog:
http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2006/06/28/professional-jealousy/

s.

'Once at afternoon tea in the Institute, 
Teller tried to explain to Bohr why he thought 
Bohr was wrong in thinking that the historical 
set-up of classical concepts would forever dominate 
our way of expressing our sense experience. 
Bohr listened with closed eyes and finally only said: 
'Oh, I understand. You might as well say that we 
are not sitting here, drinking tea, but that we 
are just dreaming all that.'
-Ted Bastin, Quantum Theory and Beyond (Cambridge
University Press, 1971), page 27.