In this article I revisit the frequency interpretation of probability of von Mises, and argue that it contains the key elements of any coherent interpretation of scientific probability - notwithstanding the heavy criticisms von Mises collected from mathematicians and philosophers alike. I propose a modified definition that is not based on von Mises' "infinite collectives" but retains an essential ingredient of his interpretation, namely that probability can only quantitatively be defined for events that are, or can be, repeated in similar conditions and that exhibit frequency stabilisation. New is that the mentioned "conditions" should be "partitioned". Thus, I will partition probabilistic systems into object and environment, or in object, initiating, and probing subsystem, and show that such partitioning solves a series of classic problems. Other consistent interpretations can be unified with frequentism, e.g. Bayesianism à la Jaynes. I explore in detail the tantalising subjective or operationalist touch of probability, and argue that it can be put on objective grounds. One further upshot of the model is that several quantum puzzles can be seen as deriving from an imprecise interpretation of probability.
Comments
This is the penultimate version of Chapter 4 of my book "Problem solving in philosophy. How to do philosophy in the age of ultra-intelligent AI" (cf. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-032-17756-8). The present article is for 99.99% identical to the book chapter (which is the last version)
In this article I revisit the frequency interpretation of probability of von Mises, and argue that it contains the key elements of any coherent interpretation of scientific probability - notwithstanding the heavy criticisms von Mises collected from mathematicians and philosophers alike. I propose a modified definition that is not based on von Mises' "infinite collectives" but retains an essential ingredient of his interpretation, namely that probability can only quantitatively be defined for events that are, or can be, repeated in similar conditions and that exhibit frequency stabilisation. New is that the mentioned "conditions" should be "partitioned". Thus, I will partition probabilistic systems into object and environment, or in object, initiating, and probing subsystem, and show that such partitioning solves a series of classic problems. Other consistent interpretations can be unified with frequentism, e.g. Bayesianism à la Jaynes. I explore in detail the tantalising subjective or operationalist touch of probability, and argue that it can be put on objective grounds. One further upshot of the model is that several quantum puzzles can be seen as deriving from an imprecise interpretation of probability.
Abstract In this chapter I revisit the frequency interpretation of probability of von Mises, and argue that it contains the key elements of any coherent interpretation of scientific probability—notwithstanding the heavy criticisms von Mises collected from mathematicians and philosophers alike. I propose a modified definition that is not based on von Mises’ ‘infinite collectives’ but retains an essential ingredient of his interpretation, namely that probability can only quantitatively be defined for events that are, or can be, repeated in similar conditions and that exhibit frequency stabilisation. New is that the mentioned ‘conditions’ should be ‘partitioned’. Thus, I will partition probabilistic systems into object and environment, or in object, initiating, and probing subsystem, and show that such partitioning solves a series of classic problems. Other consistent interpretations can be unified with frequentism, e.g. Bayesianism à la Jaynes. I explore in detail the tantalising subjective or operationalist touch of probability, and argue that it can be put on objective grounds. One further upshot of the model is that several quantum puzzles can be seen as deriving from an imprecise interpretation of probability.
In the following we revisit the frequency interpretation of probability of Richard von Mises, in order to bring the essential implicit notions in focus. Following von Mises, we argue that probability can only be defined for events that can be repeated in similar conditions, and that exhibit 'frequency stabilization'. The central idea of the present article is that the mentioned 'conditions' should be well-defined and 'partitioned'. More precisely, we will divide probabilistic systems into object, environment, and probing subsystem, and show that such partitioning allows to solve a wide variety of classic paradoxes of probability theory. As a corollary, we arrive at the surprising conclusion that at least one central idea of the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics is a direct consequence of the meaning of probability. More precisely, the idea that the "observer influences the quantum system" is obvious if one realizes that quantum systems are probabilistic systems; it holds for all probabilistic systems, whether quantum or classical.
The aim of the article is to argue that the interpretations of quantum mechanics and of probability are much closer than usually thought. Indeed, a detailed analysis of the concept of probability (within the standard frequency theory of R. von Mises) reveals that the latter concept always refers to an observing system. The enigmatic role of the observer in the Copenhagen interpretation therefore derives from a precise understanding of probability. Besides explaining several elements of the Copenhagen interpretation, our model also allows to reinterpret recent results from 'relational quantum mechanics', and to question the premises of the 'subjective approach to quantum probabilities'.
The article discusses approaches to understanding the nature of probability in mathematics and physics with the consequences of these approaches, as well as the difficulties that arise. The ontological status of probability is discussed. It is shown that probability theory, contrary to R. Mises, should be classified as a mathematical science, using the definition formulated by A.N. Kolmogorov. The application of this definition in practice is provided within the framework of the classical approach, provided that the connection with physical reality is defined through the concept of equal opportunity. To do this, the concepts of simple and complex events are introduced, and the method of decomposing complex events into simple ones is explained. The point of view is substantiated, according to which a mathematical probability determined and related to physical reality in this way can be considered an objective probability, that is, existing independently of any tests. Various interpretations of quantum mechanics and approaches to understanding probability are also revealed. It is shown that in physics today the existing approaches to understanding the nature of probability contradict each other. In the Bohm interpretation, probability is an analogue of the classical approach – statistical objective probability, which has a mathematical formalization, and in quantum Bayesianism, probability quantifies the degree of reliability and depends on the subject conducting the experiment. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics tries to eliminate the difficulties associated with combining the wave and corpuscular properties of light and electron beams into a single picture by giving the ontological status of probability, which leads to the problem of understanding physical reality. The article argues for the need for a new connection between the mathematical description of probability and physical reality. The empirical (frequency) approach of R. Mises is analyzed, which causes a lot of criticism, as it does not have a clear consistent formalization. The article argues that this approach is inconsistent with quantum mechanics. The probability given by M. Born in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is also considered, which formulates a new definition of probability, which does not exclude the difficulties associated with the physical interpretation of probability. Born’s approach is based on the classical approach and is reduced to a formal axiomatic definition, which assumes the interpretation of probability as a mathematical construct. The connection of probability with physical reality and the consistency of the statistical method of finding probability values remain unresolved problems, which creates a dualism of understanding probability: in mathematics – one thing, in physics – another. If in the mathematical approach, the solution of these problems is carried out through the connection of probability with physical properties, then in quantum mechanics, in the Copenhagen interpretation, problems persist, which is caused by giving the wave function an ontological status.
The aim of the article is to argue that the interpretations of quantum mechanics and of probability are much closer than usually thought. Indeed, a detailed analysis of the concept of probability (within the standard frequency interpretation of R. von Mises) reveals that this notion always refers to an observing system. Therefore the instrumentalist aspects of quantum mechanics, and in particular the enigmatic role of the observer in the Copenhagen interpretation, derive from a precise understanding of probability.
Abstract Many theories and models from physics are probabilistic. This observation raises several philosophical questions: What are probabilities in physics? Do they reflect objective chances which exist independently of the human mind? Or do they only express subjective credences and thus capture our own uncertainty about the world? Finally, which metaphysical lessons, if at all, can one draw from the largely probabilistic character of physics? The chapters collected in this volume address these questions and provide a detailed philosophical appraisal of the status of probabilities in all of physics. Particular emphasis is laid upon statistical physics and quantum mechanics. Many chapters reflect a desire to understand probabilities from physics as objective chances. These chances are characterized, e.g., as time-averages, as probabilities from a best system in the terms of David Lewis, or using the Boltzmannian typicality approach. Other chapters are sympathetic to a Bayesian view of probabilities in physics. The chapters about quantum mechanics elucidate the peculiar characteristics of quantum correlations and discuss strategies to justify the Born Rule. Finally, the chapters of this volume demonstrate how closely interpretive issues about probabilities are entangled with other foundational problems of physics such as the Reversibility Paradox, the ontology of the quantum world and the question whether the world is deterministic.