According to a popular narrative, in 1932 von Neumann introduced a theorem that intended to be a proof of the impossibility of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. However, the narrative goes, Bell later spotted a flaw that allegedly shows its irrelevance. Bell’s widely accepted criticism has been challenged by Bub and Dieks: they claim that the proof shows that viable hidden variables theories cannot be theories in Hilbert space. Bub’s and Dieks’ reassessment has been in turn challenged by Mermin (...) and Schack. Hereby I critically assess their reply, with the aim of bringing further clarification concerning the meaning, scope and relevance of von Neumann’s theorem. I show that despite Mermin and Schack’s response, Bub’s and Dieks’ reassessment is quite correct, and that this reading gets strongly reinforced when we carefully consider the connection between von Neumann’s proof and Gleason’s theorem. (shrink)

Shortly after Kurt Gödel had announced an early version of the 1st incompleteness theorem, John von Neumann wrote a letter to inform him of a remarkable discovery, i.e. that the consistency of a formal system containing arithmetic is unprovable, now known as the 2nd incompleteness theorem. Although today von Neumann’s proof of the theorem is considered lost, recent literature has explored many of the issues surrounding his discovery. Yet, one question still awaits a satisfactory answer: how did (...) von Neumann achieve his result, knowing as little as he seemingly did about the 1st incompleteness theorem? In this article, I shall advance a conjectural argument to answer this question, after having rejected the argument widely shared in the literature and having analyzed the relevant documents surrounding his discovery. The argument I shall advance strictly links two of the three letters written by von Neumann to Gödel in the late 1930 and early 1931 (i.e. respectively that of November 20, 1930 and that of January 12, 1931) and finds the key for von Neumann’s discovery in his prompt understanding of the Gödel sentence A – as the documents refer to it – as expressing consistency for a formal system that contains arithmetic. (shrink)

In spite of the many efforts made to clarify von Neumann’s methodology of science, one crucial point seems to have been disregarded in recent literature: his closeness to Hilbert’s spirit. In this paper I shall claim that the scientific methodology adopted by von Neumann in his later foundational reflections originates in the attempt to revaluate Hilbert’s axiomatics in the light of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. Indeed, axiomatics continues to be pursued by the Hungarian mathematician in the spirit of Hilbert’s school. I (...) shall argue this point by examining four basic ideas embraced by von Neumann in his foundational considerations: a) the conservative attitude to assume in mathematics; b) the role that mathematics and the axiomatic approach have to play in all that is science; c) the notion of success as an alternative methodological criterion to follow in scientific research; d) the empirical and, at the same time, abstract nature of mathematical thought. Once these four basic ideas have been accepted, Hilbert’s spirit in von Neumann’s methodology of science will become clear. (shrink)

We discuss the content and significance of John von Neumann’s quantum ergodic theorem (QET) of 1929, a strong result arising from the mere mathematical structure of quantum mechanics. The QET is a precise formulation of what we call normal typicality, i.e., the statement that, for typical large systems, every initial wave function ψ0 from an energy shell is “normal”: it evolves in such a way that |ψt ψt| is, for most t, macroscopically equivalent to the micro-canonical density matrix. The (...) QET has been mostly forgotten after it was criticized as a dynamically vacuous statement in several papers in the 1950s. However, we point out that this criticism does not apply to the actual QET, a correct statement of which does not appear in these papers, but to a different (indeed weaker) statement. Furthermore, we formulate a stronger statement of normal typicality, based on the observation that the bound on the deviations from the average specified by von Neumann is unnecessarily coarse and a much tighter (and more relevant) bound actually follows from his proof. (shrink)

The renewed interest in the foundations of quantum statistical mechanics in recent years has led us to study John von Neumann’s 1929 article on the quantum ergodic theorem. We have found this almost forgotten article, which until now has been available only in German, to be a treasure chest, and to be much misunderstood. In it, von Neumann studied the long-time behavior of macroscopic quantum systems. While one of the two theorems announced in his title, the one he calls (...) the “quantum H-theorem,” is actually a much weaker statement than Boltzmann’s classical H-theorem, the other theorem, which he calls the “quantum ergodic theorem,” is a beautiful and very non-trivial result. It expresses a fact we call “normal typicality” and can be summarized as follows: For a “typical” finite family of commuting macroscopic observables, every initial wave function ψ0 from a micro-canonical energy shell so evolves that for most times t in the long run, the joint probability distribution of these observables obtained from ψ is close to.. (shrink)

We review the famous no-hidden-variables theorem in von Neumann’s 1932 book on the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. We describe the notorious gap in von Neumann’s argument, pointed out by Hermann and, more famously, by Bell. We disagree with recent papers claiming that Hermann and Bell failed to understand what von Neumann was actually doing.

The paper discusses some of the poorly explored links between the conceptual systems of logic in Kurt Gödel, the theory of automata in Alan Turing, and the theory of self-reproducing automata in John von Neumann. Traditional controversies are left aside (especially the opposition of Gödel and Turing in the view of mind) and attention is focused on the similarities between all three authors. In individual chapters, the text deals with: the form of differentiation of syntax and semantics in formal system (...) in Gödel, Turing and von Neumann; von Neumann’s variant of Gödel’s theorem and von Neumann’s and Gödel’s conception of Turing machine; and finally the same basis of the view of the relation between mind and automaton in all three authors. (shrink)

We show that the respective oversights in the von Neumann's general theorem against all hidden variable theories and Bell's theorem against their local-realistic counterparts are homologous. When latter oversight is rectified, the bounds on the CHSH correlator work out to be ±2√2 instead of ±2.

1. The theory of classes presented in this paper is a simplification of that presented by J. von Neumann in his paper Die Axiomatisierung der Mengenlehre. However, this paper is written so that it can be read independently of von Neumann's. The principal modifications of his system are the following.(1) The idea of ordered pair is defined in terms of the other primitive concepts of the system. (See Axiom 4.3 below.)(2) A much simpler proof of the well-ordering theorem, (...) based on von Neumann's equivalence axiom (Axiom 2.2 below) is given. (More exactly, the theory of ordinal numbers, on which the proof of the well-ordering theorem is based, is simplified—see §8.)(3) Functions are not assumed to be defined for all arguments. In place of “ = A” we have “is undefined.” This makes possible a constructive interpretation of the system. (See §2.)2. We wish first to give a rough picture of the system which we are trying to construct. Suppose that we have the idea “class,” but no material from which to construct classes. Nevertheless, we can construct the class 0 having no elements. And then the class 1 having 0 as its only element. And then the classes {1}, and {0, 1}, etc., using always the previously constructed classes as elements. To extend this method to infinite classes, we must give rules telling what elements are to be included. Since the nature of the rules which we can use is not altogether clear, we try to formalize the whole system; that is, to set up a system of axioms which seems to characterize this system of classes. Now in this set of axioms we find it necessary to use the idea of function (in the “Axiom of Replacement”). (shrink)

The issues, raised in Żukowski (arXiv:0809.0115v1, 2008), concerning the relevance of the von Neumann theorem for the single-system’s quantumness test proposed in Alicki and Van Ryn (J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41:062001, 2008) and performed for the case of single photon polarization in Brida et al. (Opt. Express 16:11750, 2008; arXiv:0811.3376, 2008) and the usefulness of Bell’s inequality for testing the idea of macroscopic quantum systems are discussed in some details. Finally, the proper quantum mechanical description of the experiment (...) with polarized photon beams is presented. (shrink)

The present paper investigates the philosophical relationship between John von Neumann’s Nohidden-variable theorem and Bell’s inequalities. Bell erroneously takes the axiomatic method as implying a finality claim and thus ignores von Neumann’s strongly pragmatist stance towards mathematical physics. If one considers, however, Hilbert’s axiomatic method as a critical enterprise, Bell’s theorem improves von Neumann’s by defining a more appropriate notion of ‘ hidden variable’ that permits one to include Bohm’s interpretation which recovers the predictive content of quantum mechanics. (...) Contrary to Bell’s belief, accepting this model does not require adopting the metaphysically realist Böhm picture. If one takes the latter as a physical research programme one sees that it only partly disputes a common domain of facts with the mathematically oriented research programme of von Neumann. (shrink)

It is a widespread belief that the Kochen-Specker theorem imposes a contextuality constraint on the ontology of beables in quantum hidden variables theories. On the other hand, after Bell’s influential critique, the importance of von Neumann’s wrongly called ‘impossibility proof’ has been severely questioned. However, Max Jammer, Jeffrey Bub and Dennis Dieks have proposed insightful reassessments of von Neumann’s theorem: what it really shows is that hidden variables theories cannot represent their beables by means of Hermitian operators in (...) Hilbert space. Hereby I show that i) the very same constraint can be derived from Gleason’s theorem, and that ii) if we consider the import of von Neumann’s and Gleason’s theorems, the relevance of the Kochen-Specker theorem for hidden variables theories gets substantially weakened: it does not force them to be contextual in any interesting sense of the term. (shrink)

Papers advocating a hidden-variable interpretation of quantum mechanics typically begin by emphasizing that John von Neumann’s no-go theorem does not apply to them. If authors are ontologically minded, their criticism also takes aim at his theory of measurement as expressed in his seminal 1932 book Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics Additionally, David Bohm and Basil Hiley have recently argued that “in so far as von Neumann effectively gave the quantum state a certain ontological significance, the net result was to (...) produce a confused and unsatisfactory ontology. This ontology is such that the collapse of the wave function must also have an ontological significance.”. (shrink)

I teoremi di Gödel suscitano un interesse sempre crescente nella riflessione filosofica contemporanea. Rimane però in discussione fra gli studiosi come si sia arrivati alla loro scoperta e quale sia il loro significato per il dibattito sui fondamenti delle scienze. Nel volume si ripercorrono le vicende che portarono alla formulazione dei teoremi di incompletezza, a partire dall’incontro tra von Neumann e Gödel al Congresso di Königsberg nel 1930, e si indaga, riferendosi in particolare al lavoro di von Neumann, sull’impatto che (...) questi teoremi hanno avuto per il progetto hilbertiano di fondazione della matematica e delle scienze più in generale. Ne risulta un’immagine delle indagini di Hilbert meno rigida di quella finora corrente, in linea con le più recenti acquisizioni della storiografia, e soprattutto più rispettosa della stessa prassi assiomatica, che oscillava per Hilbert tra ambizioni fondazionaliste e istanze pragmatiche. È stato von Neumann a rendere esplicita, dopo la scoperta dei teoremi di Gödel, quella che si può definire come la “svolta pragmatica” nell’assiomatica. Il libro propone inoltre un chiarimento riguardo alla scoperta di von Neumann del secondo teorema di incompletezza. (shrink)

I demonstrate that Bell's theorem is based on circular reasoning and thus a fundamentally flawed argument. It unjustifiably assumes the additivity of expectation values for dispersion-free states of contextual hidden variable theories for non-commuting observables involved in Bell-test experiments, which is tautologous to assuming the bounds of ±2 on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values. Its premises thus assume in a different guise the bounds of ±2 it sets out to prove. Once this oversight is ameliorated from Bell's argument (...) by identifying the impediment that leads to it and local realism is implemented correctly, the bounds on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values work out to be ±2√2 instead of ±2, thereby mitigating the conclusion of Bell's theorem. Consequently, what is ruled out by any of the Bell-test experiments is not local realism but the linear additivity of expectation values, which does not hold for non-commuting observables in any hidden variable theories to begin with. I also identify similar oversight in the GHZ variant of Bell's theorem, invalidating its claim of having found an inconsistency in the premisses of the argument by EPR for completing quantum mechanics. Conceptually, the oversight in both Bell's theorem and its GHZ variant traces back to the oversight in von Neumann's theorem against hidden variable theories identified by Grete Hermann in the 1930s. (shrink)

Arrow’s axiomatic foundation of social choice theory can be understood as an application of Tarski’s methodology of the deductive sciences—which is closely related to the latter’s foundational contribution to model theory. In this note we show in a model-theoretic framework how Arrow’s use of von Neumann and Morgenstern’s concept of winning coalitions allows to exploit the algebraic structures involved in preference aggregation; this approach entails an alternative indirect ultrafilter proof for Arrow’s dictatorship result. This link also connects Arrow’s seminal result (...) to key developments and concepts in the history of model theory, notably ultraproducts and preservation results. (shrink)

This article investigates the weak distributivity of Boolean σ-algebras satisfying the countable chain condition. It addresses primarily the question when such algebras carry a σ-additive measure. We use as a starting point the problem of John von Neumann stated in 1937 in the Scottish Book. He asked if the countable chain condition and weak distributivity are sufficient for the existence of such a measure.Subsequent research has shown that the problem has two aspects: one set theoretic and one combinatorial. Recent results (...) provide a complete solution of both the set theoretic and the combinatorial problems. We shall survey the history of von Neumann's Problem and outline the solution of the set theoretic problem. The technique that we describe owes much to the early work of Dorothy Maharam to whom we dedicate this article.§1. Complete Boolean algebras and weak distributivity. ABoolean algebrais a setBwith Boolean operationsa˅b,a˄b and −a, partial orderinga≤bdefined bya˄b=aand the smallest and greatest element,0and1. By Stone's Representation Theorem, every Boolean algebra is isomorphic to an algebra of subsets of some nonempty setS, under operationsa∪b,a∩b,S−a, ordered by inclusion, with0= ∅ and1=S.Complete Boolean algebras and weak distributivity.A Boolean algebrais a setBwith Boolean operationsa˅b,a˄b and -a, partial orderinga≤bdefined bya˄b=aand the smallest and greatest element.0and1. By Stone's Representation Theorem, every Boolean algebra is isomorphic to an algebra of subsets of some nonempty setS, under operationsa∪b,a∩b,S-a, ordered by inclusion, with0= ϕ and1=S. (shrink)

We prove that Voiculescu’s noncommutative version of the Weyl-von Neumann Theorem can be extended to all unital, separably representable $\mathrm {C}^\ast $ -algebras whose density character is strictly smaller than the cardinal invariant $\mathfrak {p}$. We show moreover that Voiculescu’s Theorem consistently fails for $\mathrm {C}^\ast $ -algebras of larger density character.

Non-commuting quantities and hidden parameters – Wave-corpuscular dualism and hidden parameters – Local or nonlocal hidden parameters – Phase space in quantum mechanics – Weyl, Wigner, and Moyal – Von Neumann’s theorem about the absence of hidden parameters in quantum mechanics and Hermann – Bell’s objection – Quantum-mechanical and mathematical incommeasurability – Kochen – Specker’s idea about their equivalence – The notion of partial algebra – Embeddability of a qubit into a bit – Quantum computer is not Turing machine (...) – Is continuality universal? – Diffeomorphism and velocity – Einstein’s general principle of relativity – „Mach’s principle“ – The Skolemian relativity of the discrete and the continuous – The counterexample in § 6 of their paper – About the classical tautology which is untrue being replaced by the statements about commeasurable quantum-mechanical quantities – Logical hidden parameters – The undecidability of the hypothesis about hidden parameters – Wigner’s work and и Weyl’s previous one – Lie groups, representations, and psi-function – From a qualitative to a quantitative expression of relativity − psi-function, or the discrete by the random – Bartlett’s approach − psi-function as the characteristic function of random quantity – Discrete and/ or continual description – Quantity and its “digitalized projection“ – The idea of „velocity−probability“ – The notion of probability and the light speed postulate – Generalized probability and its physical interpretation – A quantum description of macro-world – The period of the as-sociated de Broglie wave and the length of now – Causality equivalently replaced by chance – The philosophy of quantum information and religion – Einstein’s thesis about “the consubstantiality of inertia ant weight“ – Again about the interpretation of complex velocity – The speed of time – Newton’s law of inertia and Lagrange’s formulation of mechanics – Force and effect – The theory of tachyons and general relativity – Riesz’s representation theorem – The notion of covariant world line – Encoding a world line by psi-function – Spacetime and qubit − psi-function by qubits – About the physical interpretation of both the complex axes of a qubit – The interpretation of the self-adjoint operators components – The world line of an arbitrary quantity – The invariance of the physical laws towards quantum object and apparatus – Hilbert space and that of Minkowski – The relationship between the coefficients of -function and the qubits – World line = psi-function + self-adjoint operator – Reality and description – Does a „curved“ Hilbert space exist? – The axiom of choice, or when is possible a flattening of Hilbert space? – But why not to flatten also pseudo-Riemannian space? – The commutator of conjugate quantities – Relative mass – The strokes of self-movement and its philosophical interpretation – The self-perfection of the universe – The generalization of quantity in quantum physics – An analogy of the Feynman formalism – Feynman and many-world interpretation – The psi-function of various objects – Countable and uncountable basis – Generalized continuum and arithmetization – Field and entanglement – Function as coding – The idea of „curved“ Descartes product – The environment of a function – Another view to the notion of velocity-probability – Reality and description – Hilbert space as a model both of object and description – The notion of holistic logic – Physical quantity as the information about it – Cross-temporal correlations – The forecasting of future – Description in separable and inseparable Hilbert space – „Forces“ or „miracles“ – Velocity or time – The notion of non-finite set – Dasein or Dazeit – The trajectory of the whole – Ontological and onto-theological difference – An analogy of the Feynman and many-world interpretation − psi-function as physical quantity – Things in the world and instances in time – The generation of the physi-cal by mathematical – The generalized notion of observer – Subjective or objective probability – Energy as the change of probability per the unite of time – The generalized principle of least action from a new view-point – The exception of two dimensions and Fermat’s last theorem. (shrink)

Von Neumann argued by means of a thought experiment involving measurements of spin observables that the quantum mechanical quantity is conceptually equivalent to thermodynamic entropy. We analyze Von Neumann's thought experiment and show that his argument fails. Over the past few years there has been a dispute in the literature regarding the Von Neumann entropy. It turns out that each contribution to this dispute addressed a different special case. In this paper we generalize the discussion and examine the full (...) matrix of possibilities that are relevant for the evaluation and understanding of Von Neumann’s argument. (shrink)

1.1 In 1955, John Harsanyi proved a remarkable theorem:1 Suppose n agents satisfy the assumptions of von Neumann/Morgenstern (1947) expected utility theory, and so does the group as a whole (or an observer). Suppose that, if each member of the group prefers option a to b, then so does the group, or the observer (Pareto condition). Then the group’s utility function is a weighted sum of the individual utility functions. Despite Harsanyi’s insistence that what he calls the Utilitarian (...) class='Hi'>Theorem embeds utilitarianism into a theory of rationality, the theorem has fallen short of having the kind of impact on the discussion of utilitarianism for which Harsanyi hoped. Yet how could the theorem influence this discussion? Utilitarianism is as attractive to some as it is appalling to others. The prospects for this dispute to be affected by a theorem seem dim. Yet a closer look shows how the theorem could make a contribution. To fix ideas, I understand by utilitarianism the following claims: (1) Consequentialism: Actions are evaluated in terms of their consequences only. (2) Bayesianism: An agent's beliefs about possible outcomes are captured probabilistically. (3) Welfarism: The judgement of the relative goodness of states of affairs is based.. (shrink)

Much of the recent discussion of problematic aspects of quantum-mechanical measurement centers around that feature of quantum theory which is called "the projection postulate." This is roughly the claim that a change of a certain sort occurs in the state of a physical system when a measurement is made on the system. In this paper an argument for the projection postulate due to von Neumann is considered. Attention is focused on trying to provide an understanding of the notion of "the (...) state of a physical system" which is compatible with the argument von Neumann offers. An attempt is made to formulate the argument in terms of an objectivistic interpretation of probability concepts. It is seen that such an interpretation does not provide a suitable way of understanding the argument. An attempt is made to illustrate the source of this failure in terms of a non-quantum-mechanical example. (shrink)

In a series of lectures written around 1952, Schrödinger refers to von Neumann’s account of measurement in quantum mechanics as follows:I said quantum physicists bother very little about accounting, according to the accepted law, for the supposed change of the wave-function by measurement. I know of only one attempt in this direction, to which Dr. Balazs recently directed my attention. You find it in John von Neumann’s well-known book. With great acuity he constructs one analytical example. It does not refer (...) to any actual experiment, it is purely analytical. He indicates in a simple case a supplementary operator which, when added to the internal wave operator, would with any desired approximation turn the wave function as time goes on into an eigenfunction of the observable that is measured. He found it necessary to show that such a mechanism is analytically possible. The idea has not been taken up and worked out since — in about twenty years or more. Indeed I do not think it would pay. I do not believe any real measuring device is of this kind. (shrink)

This paper surveys John von Neumann's work on the mathematical foundations of quantum theories in the light of Hilbert's Sixth Problem concerning the geometrical axiomatization of physics. We argue that in von Neumann's view geometry was so tied to logic that he ultimately developed a logical interpretation of quantum probabilities. That motivated his abandonment of Hilbert space in favor of von Neumann algebras, specifically the type II1II1 factors, as the proper limit of quantum mechanics in infinite dimensions. Finally, (...) we present the reasons why his axiomatic program remained an “unsolved problem” in mathematical physics. A recent unpublished result by Huzimiro Araki, proving that no algebra with a tracial state defined on it, such as the type II1II1 factors, can support any (regular) representation of the canonical commutation relations, is also reviewed and its consequences for von Neumann's projects are discussed. (shrink)

John von Neumann's proof that quantum mechanics is logically incompatible with hidden varibales has been the object of extensive study both by physicists and by historians. The latter have concentrated mainly on the way the proof was interpreted, accepted and rejected between 1932, when it was published, and 1966, when J.S. Bell published the first explicit identification of the mistake it involved. What is proposed in this paper is an investigation into the origins of the proof rather than the (...) aftermath. In the first section, a brief overview of the his personal life and his proof is given to set the scene. There follows a discussion on the merits of using here the historical method employed elsewhere by Andrew Warwick. It will be argued that a study of the origins of von Neumann's proof shows how there is an interaction between the following factors: the broad issues within a specific culture, the learning process of the theoretical physicist concerned, and the conceptual techniques available. In our case, the ‘conceptual technology’ employed by von Neumann is identified as the method of axiomatisation. (shrink)

As interpreted by Pattee, von Neumann’s Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata has proved to be a useful tool for understanding some of the difficulties and paradoxes of molecular biosemiotics. But is its utility limited to molecular systems or is it more generally applicable within biosemiotics? One way of answering that question is to look at the Theory as a model for one particular high-level biosemiotic activity, human language. If the model is not useful for language, then it certainly cannot be generally (...) useful to biosemiotics. Beginning with the Universal Turing Machine and continuing with von Neumann’s Theory and Pattee’s interpretation, the properties of universality, programmability, underspecification, complementarity of description/construction, and open-ended evolutionary potential are shown to be usefully applicable to language, thus opening a new line of inquiry in biosemiotics. (shrink)

According to what has become a standard history of quantum mechanics, von Neumann in 1932 succeeded in convincing the physics community that he had proved that hidden variables were impossible as a matter of principle. Subsequently, leading proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation emphatically confirmed that von Neumann's proof showed the completeness of quantum mechanics. Then, the story continues, Bell in 1966 finally exposed the proof as seriously and obviously wrong; this rehabilitated hidden variables and made serious foundational research possible. (...) It is often added in recent accounts that von Neumann's error had been spotted almost immediately by Grete Hermann, but that her discovery was of no effect due to the dominant Copenhagen Zeitgeist. We shall attempt to tell a more balanced story. Most importantly, von Neumann did not claim to have shown the impossibility of hidden variables tout court, but argued that hidden-variable theories must possess a structure that deviates fundamentally from that of quantum mechanics. Both Hermann and Bell appear to have missed this point; moreover, both raised unjustified technical objections to the proof. Von Neumann's conclusion was basically that hidden-variables schemes must violate the "quantum principle" that all physical quantities are to be represented by operators in a Hilbert space. According to this conclusion, hidden-variables schemes are possible in principle but necessarily exhibit a certain kind of contextuality. As we shall illustrate, early reactions to Bohm's theory are in agreement with this account. Leading physicists pointed out that Bohm's theory has the strange feature that particle properties do not generally reveal themselves in measurements, in accordance with von Neumann's result. They did not conclude that the "impossible was done" and that von Neumann had been shown wrong. (shrink)

In the 1920s, Ackermann and von Neumann, in pursuit of Hilbert's programme, were working on consistency proofs for arithmetical systems. One proposed method of giving such proofs is Hilbert's epsilon-substitution method. There was, however, a second approach which was not reflected in the publications of the Hilbert school in the 1920s, and which is a direct precursor of Hilbert's first epsilon theorem and a certain "general consistency result" due to Bernays. An analysis of the form of this so-called "failed (...) proof" sheds further light on an interpretation of Hilbert's programme as an instrumentalist enterprise with the aim of showing that whenever a "real" proposition can be proved by ?ideal? means, it can also be proved by "real", finitary means. (shrink)

Since the analysis by John Bell in 1965, the consensus in the literature is that von Neumann’s ‘no hidden variables’ proof fails to exclude any significant class of hidden variables. Bell raised the question whether it could be shown that any hidden variable theory would have to be nonlocal, and in this sense ‘like Bohm’s theory.’ His seminal result provides a positive answer to the question. I argue that Bell’s analysis misconstrues von Neumann’s argument. What von Neumann proved was the (...) impossibility of recovering the quantum probabilities from a hidden variable theory of dispersion free (deterministic) states in which the quantum observables are represented as the ‘beables’ of the theory, to use Bell’s term. That is, the quantum probabilities could not reflect the distribution of pre-measurement values of beables, but would have to be derived in some other way, e.g., as in Bohm’s theory, where the probabilities are an artefact of a dynamical process that is not in fact a measurement of any beable of the system. (shrink)

The idea of quantum logic first appears explicitly in the short Section 5 of Chapter III. in von Neumann’s 1932 book on the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics [31]; however, the real birthplace of quantum logic is commonly identified with the 1936 seminal paper co-authored by G. Birkhoff and J. von Neumann [5]. The aim of this review is to recall the main idea of the Birkhoff-von Neumann concept1 of quantum logic as this was put forward in the 1936 paper. (...) The review is motivated partly by two facts related to quantum logic: one, peculiar, is that the 1936 von Neumann concept is an almost totally neglected2 topic in the enormous quantum logic literature [17]; the other, not very well-known, is that von Neumann was never completely satisfied with how he had worked out quantum logic. (shrink)

Von Neumann's theory of measurement in quantum mechanics is reinterpreted so that the experimental arrangement specifies the location of the “cut” by calling for the separate observation of the object and the measuring apparatus after the initial measurement interaction. The measurement ascertains which element of the mixture describing the final state of the apparatus is actually present. The relevance and feasibility of observing the final coherent state of the object plus apparatus is criticized and the paradoxes of “Schrödinger's cat” (...) and “Wigner's friend” are discussed. (shrink)

An account of the contributions of Louis de Broglie to the quantum theory of measurement processes is presented. It being impracticable to cover all research work done by de Broglie and his School about this matter, stress is put on the refutation of von Neumann's theorem, on the alternative description arising from the double solution theory, and on some critical analysis of the usually accepted formalism.

The interpretation of quantum mechanics has been a problem since its founding days. A large contribution to the discussion of possible interpretations of quantum mechanics is given by the so-called impossibility proofs for hidden variable models; models that allow a realist interpretation. In this thesis some of these proofs are discussed, like von Neumann’s Theorem, the Kochen-Specker Theorem and the Bell-inequalities. Some more recent developments are also investigated, like Meyer’s nullification of the Kochen-Specker Theorem, the MKC-models and (...) Conway and Kochen’s Free Will Theorem. This last one is taken to suggest that the problems that arise for certain interpretations of quantum mechanics are not limited to realist interpretations only, but also affect certain instrumentalist interpretations. It is argued that one may arrive at a more satisfying interpretation of quantum mechanics if one adopts a logic that seems more compatible with the instrumentalist viewpoint namely, intuitionistic logic. The motivations for adopting this form of logic rather than classical logic or quantum logic are linked to some of the philosophical ideas of Bohr. In particular a new interpretation of Bohr’s notion of complementarity is proposed. Finally some possibilities are explored for linking the intuitionistic interpretation of quantum mechanics to the mathematical formalism of the theory. (shrink)

We prove a uniqueness theorem showing that, subject to certain natural constraints, all 'no collapse' interpretations of quantum mechanics can be uniquely characterized and reduced to the choice of a particular preferred observable as determine (definite, sharp). We show how certain versions of the modal interpretation, Bohm's 'causal' interpretation, Bohr's complementarity interpretation, and the orthodox (Dirac-von Neumann) interpretation without the projection postulate can be recovered from the theorem. Bohr's complementarity and Einstein's realism appear as two quite different proposals (...) for selecting the preferred determinate observable--either settled pragmatically by what we choose to observe, or fixed once and for all, as the Einsteinian realist would require, in which case the preferred observable is a 'beable' in Bell's sense, as in Bohm's interpretation (where the preferred observable is position in configuration space). (shrink)

Conventional wisdom holds that the von Neumann entropy corresponds to thermodynamic entropy, but Hemmo and Shenker (2006) have recently argued against this view by attacking von Neumann's (1955) argument. I argue that Hemmo and Shenker's arguments fail due to several misunderstandings: about statistical-mechanical and thermodynamic domains of applicability, about the nature of mixed states, and about the role of approximations in physics. As a result, their arguments fail in all cases: in the single-particle case, the finite particles case, and (...) the infinite particles case. (shrink)

We analyze the proof given by J. S. Bell of an inequality between mean values of measurement results which, according to him, would be characteristic of any local hidden-parameter theory. It is shown that Bell's proof is based upon a hypothesis already contained in von Neumann's famous theorem: It consists in the admission that hidden values of parameters must obey the same statistical laws as observed values. This hypothesis contradicts in advance well-known and certainly correct statistical relations in (...) measurement results: One must therefore reject the type of theory considered by Bell, and his inequality has no general meaning. (shrink)

In this paper we analyse in the framework of constructive mathematics (BISH) the validity of Farkas' lemma and related propositions, namely the Fredholm alternative for solvability of systems of linear equations, optimality criteria in linear programming, Stiemke's lemma and the Superhedging Duality from mathematical finance, and von Neumann's minimax theorem with application to constructive game theory.

What were the earliest reactions to Gödel's incompleteness theorems? After a brief summary of previous work in this area I analyse, by means of unpublished archival material, the first reactions in Vienna and Berlin to Gödel's groundbreaking results. In particular, I look at how Carnap, Hempel, von Neumann, Kaufmann, and Chwistek, among others, dealt with the new results.

The main claim of this talk is that mathematical physics and philosophy of physics are not different. This claim, so formulated, is obviously false because it is overstated; however, since no non-tautological statement is likely to be completely true, it is a meaningful question whether the overstated claim expresses some truth. I hope it does, or so I’ll argue. The argument consists of two parts: First I’ll recall some characteristic features of von Neumann’s work on mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics (...) and will claim that von Neumann’s motivation and results are essentially philosophical in their nature; hence, to the extent von Neumann’s work exemplifies what is considered to be mathematical physics, mathematical physics appears as formally explicit philosophy of physics. The second argument is based on a rather trivial interpretation of what mathematical physics is. That interpretation implies that mathematical physics shares some key characteristic features with philosophy of physics which make the two almost indistinguishable. (shrink)

The main claim of this talk is that mathematical physics and philosophy of physics are not different. This claim, so formulated, is obviously false because it is overstated; however, since no non-tautological statement is likely to be completely true, it is a meaningful question whether the overstated claim expresses some truth. I hope it does, or so I’ll argue. The argument consists of two parts: First I’ll recall some characteristic features of von Neumann’s work on mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics (...) and will claim that von Neumann’s motivation and results are essentially philosophical in their nature; hence, to the extent von Neumann’s work exemplifies what is considered to be mathematical physics, mathematical physics appears as formally explicit philosophy of physics. The second argument is based on a rather trivial interpretation of what mathematical physics is. That interpretation implies that mathematical physics shares some key characteristic features with philosophy of physics which make the two almost indistinguishable. (shrink)

Concerns a problem posed, but not solved, by Frege in part III of his Grundgesetze. As a preliminary to defining ‘real number’, Frege attempts to analyse the notion of a quantitative domain. He was unaware of the previous attempt of Otto Holder to do this; it is remarked how much weaker Frege's assumptions were in deriving theorems than Holder's. Frege deals with groups on which there is a right‐invariant semilinear ordering, although he does not use this terminology. He is uncertain (...) whether it can be deduced that the ordering is also left‐invariant, and proves as much as possible without invoking the assumption that it is. The independence proof, due to Dr Peter Neumann, establishes that it could not be deduced. (shrink)

We consider an isolated, macroscopic quantum system. Let H be a microcanonical “energy shell,” i.e., a subspace of the system’s Hilbert space spanned by the (finitely) many energy eigenstates with energies between E and E + δE. The thermal equilibrium macro-state at energy E corresponds to a subspace Heq of H such that dim Heq/ dim H is close to 1. We say that a system with state vector ψ H is in thermal equilibrium if ψ is “close” to Heq. (...) We show that for “typical” Hamiltonians with given eigenvalues, all initial state vectors ψ0 evolve in such a way that ψt is in thermal equilibrium for most times t. This result is closely related to von Neumann’s quantum ergodic theorem of 1929. (shrink)

The main claim of this talk is that mathematical physics and philosophy of physics are not different. This claim, so formulated, is obviously false because it is overstated; however, since no non-tautological statement is likely to be completely true, it is a meaningful question whether the overstated claim expresses some truth. I hope it does, or so I’ll argue. The argument consists of two parts: First I’ll recall some characteristic features of von Neumann’s work on mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics (...) and will claim that von Neumann’s motivation and results are essentially philosophical in their nature; hence, to the extent von Neumann’s work exemplifies what is considered to be mathematical physics, mathematical physics appears as formally explicit philosophy of physics. The second argument is based on a rather trivial interpretation of what mathematical physics is. That interpretation implies that mathematical physics shares some key characteristic features with philosophy of physics which make the two almost indistinguishable. (shrink)