Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

REALITY AND PROBABILITY IN MARIO BUNGE' S TREATISE

Michel Paty

Published Jan 1, 1989• 1 citation
OpenAlex

Abstract

The problem of the nature of probability laws in physics is a central one from the epistemologic point of view : perhaps the most central one for twentieth century physics, if we consider, on the one hand, the harsh debates to which it has given rise in the recent past (left unconcluded by the protagonists and most often by their successors) and the vagueness of the answers which are generally proposed by contemporary physicists when asked about this problem ; and, on the other hand, the perspectives of theoretical physics as it is developing under our eyes in the various domains - and, perhaps above all, in the "frontier" domains such as particle symmetry fields and cosmology, or, differently, dynamics of continuous media, turbulences and chaos, where probability is a - if not the - fundamental concept.

Related papers

REALITY AND PROBABILITY: INTRODUCING A NEW TYPE OF PROBABILITY CALCULUS

Diederik Aerts

We consider a conception of reality that is the following: An object is 'real' if we know that if we would try to test whether this object is present, this test would give us the answer 'yes' with certainty. If we consider a conception of reality where probability plays a fundamental role it can be shown that standard probability theory is not well suited to substitute 'certainty' by means of 'probability equal to 1'. The analysis of this problem leads us to propose a new type of probability theory that is a generalization of standard probability theory. This new type of probability is a function to the set of all subsets of the interval [0, 1] instead of to the interval [0, 1] itself, and hence its evaluation happens by means of a subset instead of a number. This subset corresponds to the different limits of sequences of relative frequency that can arise when an intrinsic lack of knowledge about the context and how it influences the state of the physical entity under study in the process of experimentation is taken into account. The new probability theory makes it possible to define probability on the whole set of experiments within the Geneva-Brussels approach to quantum mechanics, which was not possible with standard probability theory. We introduce the structure of a 'state experiment probability system' and derive the state property system as a special case of this structure. The category SEP of state experiment probability systems and their morphisms is linked with the category SP of state property systems and their morphisms

arXiv:quant-ph/0205165•Jun 1, 2002•17 citations

The Concept of Probability in Statistical Physics

Y. M. Guttmann

Foundational issues in statistical mechanics and the more general question of how probability is to be understood in the context of physical theories are both areas that have been neglected by philosophers of physics. This book fills an important gap in the literature by providing a most systematic study of how to interpret probabilistic assertions in the context of statistical mechanics. The book explores both subjectivist and objectivist accounts of probability, and takes full measure of work in the foundations of probability theory, in statistical mechanics, and in mathematical theory. It will be of particular interest to philosophers of science, physicists and mathematicians interested in foundational issues, and also to historians of science.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jul 13, 1999•67 citations

On the Concept of Spacetime & Consciousness: Some Western and Indic Thoughts

Narendra D. Sharma

What is 'the nature of reality’? This thought has occupied the minds of scientists and philosophers since time immemorial. This issue is examined scientifically, that, how the views of scientists and western philosophers have undergone a dramatic change over a period of time. This may then answer whether spacetime is a reality of nature or if it is just a figment of our imagination in which to view this cosmos! The article begins with the thoughts of Democritus, and the other Greek philosophers, continuing with the ideas of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. With the thoughts of Bacon, Descartes and Isaac Newton, the rise of the ‘mechanical world view’ later the decline of this view is discussed when the phenomenon in optics, electricity and magnetism could not be explained. Then the concept of ‘field’ was evolved, culminating in ‘Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetic fields’.The beginning of twentieth century saw the evolution of the concepts of ‘relativity’, by Einstein, and the birth of ‘quantum theory’, starting with the idea of ‘quanta’, originated by Planck in 1900. The first three decades of the 20th century saw great breakthroughs in the world of theoretical physics - totally new ideas on ‘the nature of reality’ were being conceived. Large numbers of fundamental particles were discovered in the ensuing years. However, not much progress indeed was made in answering some of the most fundamental questions about the existence of human life and the nature of reality. Some interesting ideas on ‘biocentrism’ have now evolved. Biocentrism, along with the ideas of quantum theory and the concept of consciousness, may answer some of the intricate questions about the nature of reality; these will be discussed at length. These concepts will then be viewed from the perspective of Indic thoughts. The ‘Vedic’ and ‘Upanishadic’ knowledge from Indian scriptures may probably answer even more clearly some of the most intriguing questions about the existence of life and the ‘nature of reality’ itself.Beginning of twentieth century saw the evolution of the concepts of ‘Relativity’, by Einstein, and the birth of ‘Quantum Theory’, starting with the idea of ‘Quanta’, originated by Planck in 1900. The first three decades of 20th century saw the great breakthroughs in the world of theoretical physics. Absolutely new ideas on ‘The Nature of Reality’ were being conceived. Large number of fundamental particles was discovered in the ensuing years. But not much progress indeed took place in answering some of the most fundamental questions on existence of human life and the nature of reality. Some interesting ideas on ‘Biocentrism’ have now evolved. Biocentrism along with the ideas of Quantum Theory and the concept of Consciousness may answer some of the intricate questions on nature of reality; these will be discussed at length. These concepts will then be viewed from perspective of Indic thoughts. The ‘Vedic’ and ‘Upanishadic’ knowledge from Indian scriptures may probably answer even more clearly some of the most intriguing questions on the existence of life and the ‘Nature of Reality’ itself.

Journal of consciousness exploration & research•Apr 22, 2018•2 citations

Probability in Orthodox Quantum Mechanics: Probability as a Postulate Versus Probability as an Emergent Phenomenon

Stephen L. Adler

arXiv:quant-ph/0004077•Lecture notes in physics•Jan 1, 2001•4 citations

Light and life: Niels Bohr's legacy to contemporary biology

Gunther S. Stent

On August 15, 1932 Niels Bohr gave opening address of International Congress on Therapy held in Copenhagen. Bohr's title was Light and Life, and his purpose was to draw attention to epistemological implications for life sciences of fundamental changes that quantum theory had brought to conception of natural law (Bohr 1933). He thought that these changes, which extend to very idea of nature of scientific explanation, were important not only for a full appreciation of new situation brought to physics by quantum theory. According to Bohr, these developments had also created an entirely new background for viewing problems of biology, especially as concerns our views on position of living organisms in realm of natural science. In particular, Bohr proposed that notion of complementarity, which he had first presented 5 years earlier at International Congress of Physics in Como, relevant also for physiological and psychological aspects of life. Bohr began his address by stating what nowadays stigmatized as reductionist credo, namely that subtle character of riddle of life notwithstanding, any scientific explanation of biological phenomena necessarily must consist of reducing description of more complex phenomena to that of simpler ones. But, Bohr continued, discovery of an essential limitation of mechanical description of natural phenomena, as revealed by recent development of atomic theory, has lent new interest to old problem of how far program of reductive biological explanations can be carried. Bohr then presented a brief historical account of rise of quantum theory in connection with study of light, which he thought is perhaps least complex of all physical phenomena. Yet, it turned out that despite its lack of complexity, phenomenon of light cannot be given a coherent mechanical explanation, inasmuch as from viewpoint of classical physical theories, the quantum of action . . . must be considered as an irrational notion. The spatial continuity of light propagation, on one hand, and atomicity of light effects on other hand, must, therefore, be considered as complementary aspects of one reality, in sense that each expresses an important feature of phenomena of light. Those aspects are complementary, because, although they are conceptually irreconcilable from a mechanical point of view, they can never be shown to be in direct, or empirical, contradiction. The reason for this that any closer analysis of either wave aspect or particle aspect of light demands mutually exclusive observational arrangements.

Genome•Jan 1, 1989•10 citations

What Interpretation for Probability in Physics?

María Carla Galavotti

Lecture notes in physics•Jan 1, 2001•2 citations
The problem of the nature of probability laws in physics is a central one from the epistemologic point of view : perhaps the most central one for twentieth century physics, if we consider, on the one hand, the harsh debates to which it has given rise in the recent past (left unconcluded by the protagonists and most often by their successors) and the vagueness of the answers which are generally proposed by contemporary physicists when asked about this problem ; and, on the other hand, the perspectives of theoretical physics as it is developing under our eyes in the various domains - and, perhaps above all, in the "frontier" domains such as particle symmetry fields and cosmology, or, differently, dynamics of continuous media, turbulences and chaos, where probability is a - if not the - fundamental concept.
We consider a conception of reality that is the following: An object is 'real' if we know that if we would try to test whether this object is present, this test would give us the answer 'yes' with certainty. If we consider a conception of reality where probability plays a fundamental role it can be shown that standard probability theory is not well suited to substitute 'certainty' by means of 'probability equal to 1'. The analysis of this problem leads us to propose a new type of probability theory that is a generalization of standard probability theory. This new type of probability is a function to the set of all subsets of the interval [0, 1] instead of to the interval [0, 1] itself, and hence its evaluation happens by means of a subset instead of a number. This subset corresponds to the different limits of sequences of relative frequency that can arise when an intrinsic lack of knowledge about the context and how it influences the state of the physical entity under study in the process of experimentation is taken into account. The new probability theory makes it possible to define probability on the whole set of experiments within the Geneva-Brussels approach to quantum mechanics, which was not possible with standard probability theory. We introduce the structure of a 'state experiment probability system' and derive the state property system as a special case of this structure. The category SEP of state experiment probability systems and their morphisms is linked with the category SP of state property systems and their morphisms
Foundational issues in statistical mechanics and the more general question of how probability is to be understood in the context of physical theories are both areas that have been neglected by philosophers of physics. This book fills an important gap in the literature by providing a most systematic study of how to interpret probabilistic assertions in the context of statistical mechanics. The book explores both subjectivist and objectivist accounts of probability, and takes full measure of work in the foundations of probability theory, in statistical mechanics, and in mathematical theory. It will be of particular interest to philosophers of science, physicists and mathematicians interested in foundational issues, and also to historians of science.
What is 'the nature of reality’? This thought has occupied the minds of scientists and philosophers since time immemorial. This issue is examined scientifically, that, how the views of scientists and western philosophers have undergone a dramatic change over a period of time. This may then answer whether spacetime is a reality of nature or if it is just a figment of our imagination in which to view this cosmos! The article begins with the thoughts of Democritus, and the other Greek philosophers, continuing with the ideas of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. With the thoughts of Bacon, Descartes and Isaac Newton, the rise of the ‘mechanical world view’ later the decline of this view is discussed when the phenomenon in optics, electricity and magnetism could not be explained. Then the concept of ‘field’ was evolved, culminating in ‘Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetic fields’.The beginning of twentieth century saw the evolution of the concepts of ‘relativity’, by Einstein, and the birth of ‘quantum theory’, starting with the idea of ‘quanta’, originated by Planck in 1900. The first three decades of the 20th century saw great breakthroughs in the world of theoretical physics - totally new ideas on ‘the nature of reality’ were being conceived. Large numbers of fundamental particles were discovered in the ensuing years. However, not much progress indeed was made in answering some of the most fundamental questions about the existence of human life and the nature of reality. Some interesting ideas on ‘biocentrism’ have now evolved. Biocentrism, along with the ideas of quantum theory and the concept of consciousness, may answer some of the intricate questions about the nature of reality; these will be discussed at length. These concepts will then be viewed from the perspective of Indic thoughts. The ‘Vedic’ and ‘Upanishadic’ knowledge from Indian scriptures may probably answer even more clearly some of the most intriguing questions about the existence of life and the ‘nature of reality’ itself.Beginning of twentieth century saw the evolution of the concepts of ‘Relativity’, by Einstein, and the birth of ‘Quantum Theory’, starting with the idea of ‘Quanta’, originated by Planck in 1900. The first three decades of 20th century saw the great breakthroughs in the world of theoretical physics. Absolutely new ideas on ‘The Nature of Reality’ were being conceived. Large number of fundamental particles was discovered in the ensuing years. But not much progress indeed took place in answering some of the most fundamental questions on existence of human life and the nature of reality. Some interesting ideas on ‘Biocentrism’ have now evolved. Biocentrism along with the ideas of Quantum Theory and the concept of Consciousness may answer some of the intricate questions on nature of reality; these will be discussed at length. These concepts will then be viewed from perspective of Indic thoughts. The ‘Vedic’ and ‘Upanishadic’ knowledge from Indian scriptures may probably answer even more clearly some of the most intriguing questions on the existence of life and the ‘Nature of Reality’ itself.
On August 15, 1932 Niels Bohr gave opening address of International Congress on Therapy held in Copenhagen. Bohr's title was Light and Life, and his purpose was to draw attention to epistemological implications for life sciences of fundamental changes that quantum theory had brought to conception of natural law (Bohr 1933). He thought that these changes, which extend to very idea of nature of scientific explanation, were important not only for a full appreciation of new situation brought to physics by quantum theory. According to Bohr, these developments had also created an entirely new background for viewing problems of biology, especially as concerns our views on position of living organisms in realm of natural science. In particular, Bohr proposed that notion of complementarity, which he had first presented 5 years earlier at International Congress of Physics in Como, relevant also for physiological and psychological aspects of life. Bohr began his address by stating what nowadays stigmatized as reductionist credo, namely that subtle character of riddle of life notwithstanding, any scientific explanation of biological phenomena necessarily must consist of reducing description of more complex phenomena to that of simpler ones. But, Bohr continued, discovery of an essential limitation of mechanical description of natural phenomena, as revealed by recent development of atomic theory, has lent new interest to old problem of how far program of reductive biological explanations can be carried. Bohr then presented a brief historical account of rise of quantum theory in connection with study of light, which he thought is perhaps least complex of all physical phenomena. Yet, it turned out that despite its lack of complexity, phenomenon of light cannot be given a coherent mechanical explanation, inasmuch as from viewpoint of classical physical theories, the quantum of action . . . must be considered as an irrational notion. The spatial continuity of light propagation, on one hand, and atomicity of light effects on other hand, must, therefore, be considered as complementary aspects of one reality, in sense that each expresses an important feature of phenomena of light. Those aspects are complementary, because, although they are conceptually irreconcilable from a mechanical point of view, they can never be shown to be in direct, or empirical, contradiction. The reason for this that any closer analysis of either wave aspect or particle aspect of light demands mutually exclusive observational arrangements.