Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Journal of Philosophy, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal
of Philosophy.
http://www.jstor.org
4_. - , .:,
345
Two alleged oversights: The reader might object that two oversights
compromise my presentation. First, one might argue that classical
istic of the instrument for the actual value of A, and the instrument is
taken to give us not the point value a but the fuzzy value (a, fa). Given
this notion of fuzzy sample points, we also introduce the idea of fuzzy
events E = {(a, fa):aeE, E a borel set of reals} and confidence measures
va(E) = fEfa(x)dx. The approach then proceeds by replacing projection-
valued measures in the analysis of observables with the more general no-
tion of positive operator-valued measures. To give an example: where a
projection-valued measure takes on projectors as values,
ment that measurement be very nearly repeatable, and in practice one can
continue to use projection-operator-based descriptions of measurements,
knowing that they are not idealizations but approximations.
In other respects, however, it is not at all dear that the work on fuzzy
events and observables can help us with the present interpretive program.
Our program is to interpret outcomes of measurements as partlessly spread-
out values, not as distributions over actual precise values. Once we see
this, it is not clear what is gained by distinguishing between fuzzy sample
points, as we would have to reinterpret them, and the amplitude squared
of state functions as the proper description of observed or prepared posi-
tions or other quantities. There also may be technical difficulties in re-
describing fuzzy sample points as partlessly extended values; for the inter-
pretations of the fuzziness of sample points and of state functions'
amplitude squared are very explicitly taken in this literature to be
probability distributions over exact values.
PT