Justifying typicality measures of Boltzmannian statistical mechanics and dynamical systems

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 44 (4):470-479 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

A popular view in contemporary Boltzmannian statistical mechanics is to interpret the measures as typicality measures. In measure-theoretic dynamical systems theory measures can similarly be interpreted as typicality measures. However, a justification why these measures are a good choice of typicality measures is missing, and the paper attempts to fill this gap. The paper first argues that Pitowsky's (2012) justification of typicality measures does not fit the bill. Then a first proposal of how to justify typicality measures is presented. The main premises are that typicality measures are invariant and are related to the initial probability distribution of interest (which are translation-continuous or translation-close). The conclusions are two theorems which show that the standard measures of statistical mechanics and dynamical systems are typicality measures. There may be other typicality measures, but they agree about judgements of typicality. Finally, it is proven that if systems are ergodic or epsilon-ergodic, there are uniqueness results about typicality measures.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Chance in Boltzmannian Statistical Mechanics.Roman Frigg - 2008 - Philosophy of Science 75 (5):670-681.
Quantum statistical determinism.Eftichios Bitsakis - 1988 - Foundations of Physics 18 (3):331-355.
Typicality and the role of the Lebesgue measure in statistical mechanics.Itamar Pitowsky - 2012 - In Yemima Ben-Menahem & Meir Hemmo (eds.), Probability in Physics. Springer. pp. 41--58.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-30

Downloads
376 (#50,689)

6 months
27 (#105,170)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Charlotte Sophie Werndl
London School of Economics

Citations of this work

Understanding Physics: ‘What?’, ‘Why?’, and ‘How?’.Mario Hubert - 2021 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 11 (3):1-36.
Rethinking boltzmannian equilibrium.Charlotte Werndl & Roman Frigg - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (5):1224-1235.
Reviving Frequentism.Mario Hubert - 2021 - Synthese 199:5255–5584.

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Compendium of the foundations of classical statistical physics.Jos Uffink - 2005 - In Jeremy Butterfield & John Earman (eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Physics. Elsevier.
What could be objective about probabilities?Tim Maudlin - 2007 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38 (2):275-291.
What Are the New Implications of Chaos for Unpredictability?Charlotte Werndl - 2009 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (1):195-220.

View all 19 references / Add more references