PKT message, Outcomes, Event, and Probability

As follow-up to earlier postings on related issues, I thought I should pass along the following exchange between a scientist with an interest in probability and myself. My correspondent's distinction between "outcomes" and "events" would seem to go the heart of the differences between Einstein, on the one hand, and most of his QM peers, on the other hand, on how to interpret QM results.

If one shares Einstein's view - as I do - then QM probabilities would be predicated on (a) precision of "outcome" measurements, and (b) ignorance of underlying "events" which generate such "outcomes".

This contrasts with the state of affairs in modern theoretical economics, where (a) imprecision of "outcome" measurements is the rule, and (b) ignorance of underlying "events" is papered over with "models" which are acknowledged up front to be useless insofar as predicting precise "outcomes" is concerned.

Gunnar

                   There is very little difference between the
                   theoretical situation and the practical
                   situation in the case of outcomes, and no great
                   reasoning power is required to determine the
                   probability.

              Agree - all one has to do is to tally up outcomes A, B, and C for a total of
              X and express their respective "frequencies" > "probabilities" as A/X, B/X,
              and C/X.

                   In the case of events, the reasoning power
                   required to come up with anything that one
                   could claim as a respectable theoretical model
                   that is even close to the real situation
                   appears well beyond our grasp.

Agree.

              In this respect, I would add, Einstein was in a minority of one among leading
              QM theorists in insisting on the distinction between predictable QM
              "outcomes" and unpredictable QM "events".

This is how he summarized his position:

                   Roughly stated the conclusion is this. Within the framework of
                   statistical quantum theory there is no such thing as a complete
                   description of the individual system. More cautiously it might be put
                   as follows: The attempt to conceive the quantum theoretical
                   description as the complete description of the individual system leads
                   to unnatural theoretical interpretations, which become immediately
                   unnecessary if one accepts the interpretation that the description
                   refers to ensembles of systems and not to individual systems.

              In the event, the practical excellence of the models developed by QM
              physicists has effectively trumped any theoretical reservations which
              scientists might otherwise entertain with respect to the logical adequacy of
              the probability calculus in fields other than QM.

              For, to recognize that QM models mirror outcomes and not events, is to
              go back to square one insofar as the logical foundations of the Frequentist
              View of probability is concerned.