Objective chance: not propensity, maybe determinism

Carl Hoefer

Résumé


One currently popular view about the nature of objective probabilities, or objective chances, is that they – or some of them, at least – are primitive features of the physical world, not reducible to anything else nor explicable in terms of frequencies, degrees of belief, or anything else.  In this paper I explore the question of what the semantic content of primitive chance claims could be.  Every attempt I look at to supply such content either comes up empty-handed, or begs important questions against the skeptic who doubts the meaningfulness of primitive chance claims. In the second half of the paper I show that, by contrast, there are clear, and clearly contentful, ways to understand objective chance claims if we ground them on deterministic physical underpinnings.

Mots-clés


chance; probability; propensity; primitive chance; subjective probability; determinism; indeterminism; Humeanism; frequentism

Texte intégral :

PDF (English)

Références


CALLENDER, Craig. 2004. Measures, Explanations and the Past: Should ‘Special’ Initial Conditions Be Explained? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55(2), 195-217.

CARTWRIGHT, Nancy. 1999. The Dappled World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

DIACONIS, Percy, HOLMES, Susan and MONTGOMERY, Richard. 2007. Dynamical Bias in the Coin Toss. SIAM Review, 49(2), 211-235.

DÜRR, D., GOLDSTEIN, S. and ZHANGI, N. 1992. Quantum Equilibrium and the Origin of Absolute Uncertainty. Journal of Statistical Physics, 67, 843-907.

EMERY, Nina. 2015. Chance, Possibility and Explanation. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 66 (1), 95-120.

FETZER, James H. & NUTE, Donald E. 1979. Syntax, Semantics and Ontology: a Probabilistic Causal Calculus. Synthese, 40, 453-495.

FILOMENO, Aldo. 2014. On the possibility of stable regularities without fundamental laws. Doctoral dissertation, Autonomous University of Barcelona.

FRIGG, Roman and WERNDL, Charlotte. 2012. Demystifying Typicality. Philosophy of Science, 79 (5), 917–929.

FRIGG, Roman and HOEFER, Carl. 2015. The Best Humean System for Statistical Mechanics. Erkenntnis, 80 (3 Supplement), 551-574. Special issue edited by J. Berkovitz & P. Huneman.

GIERE, Ronald. 1973. Objective Single-Case Probabilities and the Foundations of Statistics. In SUPPES, P. et al., (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science IV. New York: North-Holland, 467–483.

GIERE, Ronald. 1976. A Laplacean Formal Semantics for Single-Case Propensities. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 5, 321-353.

HÁJEK, Alan. 2012. Interpretations of Probability. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/probability-interpret/

HALL, Ned. (2004). Two Mistakes About Credence and Chance. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 82(1), 93 – 111.

HOEFER, Carl. 2007. The Third Way on Objective Probability: A Skeptic’s Guide to Objective Chance. Mind, 116, 549-96.

HOEFER, Carl. 2011a. Time and Chance Propensities. In Craig Callender (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 68–90.

HOEFER, Carl. 2011b. Physics and the Humean Approach to Probability. In BEISBART, C. and HARTMANN, S. (eds.). Probabilities in Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 321–337.

LEWIS, David. 1994. Humean Supervenience Debugged. Mind, 113, 473-490.

MAUDLIN, Tim. 2007. What Could Be Objective About Probabilities? Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38(2), 275-291.

MCCALL, S. 1994. A Model of the Universe: Space-Time, Probability, and Decision. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

MELLOR, Hugh. 1995. The Facts of Causation. London: Routledge.

MYRVOLD, Wayne. 2012. Probabilities in Statistical Mechanics: What Are They? Unpublished ms. Available at http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9236/

MYRVOLD, Wayne. 2016. Probabilities in Statistical Mechanics. In HITCHCOCK, C and HÁJEK, A. (eds). Oxford Handbook of Probability and Philosophy. Oxford University Press. Preprint available at http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9957/.

NORSEN, Travis. 2014. The Pilot-Wave Perspective on Spin. American Journal of Physics, 82(4), 337-348.

POINCARÉ, Henrí. 1896/1912. Le calcul des probabilités. 2nd ed. 1912. Paris: Gauthier-Villars.

POLLOCK, John. 1990. Nomic Probability and the Foundations of Induction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

SOBER, Elliott. 2010. Evolutionary Theory and the Reality of Macro Probabilities. In EELLS, Ellery and FETZER, James H. (eds.). The Place of Probability in Science. Netherlands: Springer, 133—60.

STREVENS, Michael. 1998. Inferring probabilities from symmetries. Noûs, 32(2), 231-246.

STREVENS, Michael. 2003. Bigger than Chaos: Understanding Complexity through Probability. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

SUÁREZ, Mauricio. 2013. Propensities and Pragmatism. The Journal of Philosophy, 110(2), 61 – 92.

VAN FRAASSEN, Bas. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

VAN FRAASSEN, Bas. 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20416/lsrsps.v3i1.603

Renvois

  • Il n'y a présentement aucun renvoi.




Lato Sensu est publiée par la Société de philosophie des sciences