Peter P. Kirschenmann

Philosophers are continually challenged to comprehend chance phenomena and probabilistic relationships. Those cases are especially intriguing in which we speak of chance or probability but can hardly attribute this manner of speaking to our being partially or totally ignorant of the situations in question. Those cases, then, can be taken to possess chance as an objective feature. In its intent, this paper is restricted to a discussion of such cases. Among objective chance relationships there is one kind which seems especially incomprehensible. These are stochastic relationships, i.e., chance relationships between consecutive states of physical systems.

The Anthropic Principle (AP), in its many versions, has received diverging assessments. I mainly examine the less speculative weak (WAP) and strong (SAP) versions and their assessments. I argue, among others, the following points. The construal of the WAP asa consistency requirement or a truth of (Bayesian) confirmation theory, while correct, does not quite capture its spirit. The charge of its being a tautology, which occasionscomparisons with the Principle of Natural Selection (PNS), is overstated. Still, in contrast with PNS's role, it is never substantially involved in „anthropic explanations”. „Many worlds”-hypotheses, joined to the SAP, can yield (rather speculative) explanation. Friends of the AP roughly accept common scientific standards, which make the AP appear — even to some of them — as a temporary stop-gap

A philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics presupposes a clear understanding of what is asserted by this theory. The aim of this paper is to help clarify one specific theorem of quantum mechanics, namely the so-called uncertainty relations. The surprisingly wide spread belief that these relations generally imply a reciprocal or inversely proportional relationship between the respective uncertainties is shown to be mistaken. Several reasons why this mistaken belief has been embraced are suggested. The conditions under which one could say that the uncertainty relations imply an inversely proportional relationship between uncertainties are specified