The purpose of this paper is to clarify the (non-Bayesian and Bayesian) two-envelope problems in terms of quantum language (or, measurement theory), which was recently proposed as a linguistic turn of quantum mechanics (with the Copenhagen interpretation). The two envelopes paradox is only a kind of high school student's probability puzzle, and it may be exaggerated to say that this is an unsolved problem. However, since we are convinced that quantum language is just statistics of the future, we believe that there is no clear answer without the description by quantum language. In this sense, the readers are to find that quantum language provides the final answer (i.e., the easiest and deepest understanding) to the two envelope-problems in both non-Bayesian and Bayesian statistics. Also, we add the discussion about St. Petersburg two-envelope paradox.
The purpose of this paper is to clarify the (non-Bayesian and Bayesian) two-envelope problems in terms of quantum language (or, measurement theory), which was recently proposed as a linguistic turn of quantum mechanics (with the Copenhagen interpretation). The two envelopes paradox is only a kind of high school student's probability puzzle, and it may be exaggerated to say that this is an unsolved problem. However, since we are convinced that quantum language is just statistics of the future, we believe that there is no clear answer without the description by quantum language. In this sense, the readers are to find that quantum language provides the final answer (i.e., the easiest and deepest understanding) to the two envelope-problems in both non-Bayesian and Bayesian statistics. Also, we add the discussion about St. Petersburg two-envelope paradox.
The purpose of this paper is to clarify the (non-Bayesian and Bayesian) two-envelope problems in terms of quantum language (or, measurement theory), which was recently proposed as a linguistic turn of quantum mechanics (with the Copenhagen interpretation). The two envelopes paradox is only a kind of high school student's probability puzzle, and it may be exaggerated to say that this is an unsolved problem. However, since we are convinced that quantum language is just statistics of the future, we believe that there is no clear answer without the description by quantum language. In this sense, the readers are to find that quantum language provides the final answer (i.e., the easiest and deepest understanding) to the two envelope-problems in both non-Bayesian and Bayesian statistics. Also, we add the discussion about St. Petersburg two-envelope paradox.
Recently, we proposed measurement theory ( or. quantum language) as a linguistic turn of quantum mechanics (with the Copenhagen interpretation). This theory has a great power of scientific descriptions. In fact, we have continued asserting that even statistics can be described in terms of measurement theory. Thus, we believe that quantum language is future statistics (i.e., statistics will develop into quantum language). However, now we think that our arguments were too abstract and philosophical, that is, we should have presented concrete examples much more. Thus, in this paper, we show that the calculation of Kalman filter is more understandable in terms of quantum language than in terms of usual statistics. For this, we devote ourselves to statistical measurement theory, in which the Bertrand paradox is discussed.
Since the problem: "What is statistics?" is most fundamental in sceince, in order to solve this problem, there is every reason to believe that we have to start from the proposal of a worldview. Recently we proposed measurement theory (i.e., quantum language, or the linguistic interpretation of quantum mechanics), which is characterized as the linguistic turn of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. This turn from physics to language does not only extend quantum theory to classical theory but also yield the quantum mechanical world view (i.e., the (quantum) linguistic world view, and thus, a form of quantum thinking, in other words, quantum philosophy). Thus, we believe that the quantum lingistic formulation of statistics gives an answer to the question: "What is statistics?". In this paper, this will be done through the studies of inference interval, statistical hypothesis testing, Fisher maximum likelihood method, Bayes method and regression analysis in meaurement theory.
About twenty years ago, we proposed the mathematical formulation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and further, we concluded that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and EPR-paradox are not contradictory. This is true, however we now think that we should have argued about it under a certain firm interpretation of quantum mechanics. Recently we proposed the linguistic quantum interpretation (called quantum and classical measurement theory), which was characterized as a kind of metaphysical and linguistic turn of the Copenhagen interpretation. This turn from physics to language does not only extend quantum theory to classical systems but also yield the quantum mechanical world view (i.e., the philosophy of quantum mechanics, in other words, quantum philosophy). In fact, we can consider that traditional philosophies have progressed toward quantum philosophy. In this paper, we first review the linguistic quantum interpretation, and further, clarify the relation between EPR-paradox and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. That is, the linguistic interpretation says that EPR-paradox is closely related to the fact that syllogism does not generally hold in quantum physics. This fact should be compared to the non-locality of Bell's inequality.
It is a matter of course that Kolmogorov’s probability theory is a very useful mathematical tool for the analysis of statistics. However, this fact never means that statistics is based on Kolmogorov’s probability theory, since it is not guaranteed that mathematics and our world are connected. In order that mathematics asserts some statements concerning our world, a certain theory (so called “world view”) mediates between mathematics and our world. Recently we propose measurement theory (i.e., the theory of the quantum mechanical world view), which is characterized as the linguistic turn of quantum mechanics. In this paper, we assert that statistics is based on measurement theory. And, for example, we show, from the pure theoretical point of view (i.e., from the measurement theoretical point of view), that regression analysis can not be justified without Bayes’ theorem. This may imply that even the conventional classification of (Fisher’s) statistics and Bayesian statistics should be reconsidered.
Recently we proposed the linguistic interpretation of quantum mechanics (called quantum and classical measurement theory, or quantum language), which was characterized as a kind of metaphysical and linguistic turn of the Copenhagen interpretation. This turn from physics to language does not only extend quantum theory to classical systems but also yield the quantum mechanical world view (i.e., the philosophy of quantum mechanics, in other words, quantum philosophy).And we believe that this quantum language is the most powerful language to describe science. The purpose of this paper is to describe the Monty-Hall problem and the three prisoners problem in quantum language. We of course believe that our proposal is the final solutions of the two problems. Thus in this paper, we can answer the question: "Why have philosophers continued to stick to these problems?" And the readers will find that these problems are never elementary, and they can not be solved without the deep understanding of "probability" and "dualism". KEY WORDS: Philosophy of probability, Fisher Maximum Likelihood Method, Bayes' Method,The Principle of Equal (a priori) Probabilities