Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states

Does the quantum state represent reality or our knowledge of reality? In making this distinction precise, we are led to a novel classification of hidden variable models of quantum theory. Indeed, representatives of each class can be found among existing constructions for two-dimensional Hilbert spaces. Our approach also provides a fruitful new perspective on arguments for the nonlocality and incompleteness of quantum theory. Specifically, we show that for models wherein the quantum state has the status of something real, the failure of locality can be established through an argument considerably more straightforward than Bell's theorem. The historical significance of this result becomes evident when one recognizes that the same reasoning is present in Einstein's preferred argument for incompleteness, which dates back to 1935. This fact suggests that Einstein was seeking not just any completion of quantum theory, but one wherein quantum states are solely representative of our knowledge. Our hypothesis is supported by an analysis of Einstein's attempts to clarify his views on quantum theory and the circumstance of his otherwise puzzling abandonment of an even simpler argument for incompleteness from 1927.Comment: 18 pages, 8 figures, 1 recipe for cupcakes; comments welcom

Wholesale pricing in a small open economy

This paper addresses the empirical analysis of wholesale profit margins using data of the Dutch wholesale sector, 1986. At the heart of the analysis is the typical nature of wholesale production: wholesalers do not produce a tangible product, but offer a service capacity. This has an immediate impact on the identification, interprelation and measurement of determinants of profit variations. A model is set up to explain variations in wholesale profit margins, which is inspired by two widely applied approaches to industry pricing: the behavioural mark-up model and the marginalist price-cost model

In defence of theoretical and methodological pluralism in the sociology of art: a critique of Georgina Born's programmatic essay

This article welcomes Born's proposal that the sociology of art learn from 'adjacent fields' that can 'augment the sociological repertoire'. It agrees especially that sociologists can learn much from the anthropology of art and material culture studies. However, it challenges Born's claim that the sociology of art has 'seen little progress in recent years' and thus questions certain aspects of her proposal for a 'post-Bourdieuian theory of cultural production'. The central argument is: rather than an 'analytics of mediation' — which Born recommends — the sociology of art can benefit from studying material 'mediators' at work in concrete artistic networks, and the role of aesthetic agency and art in the constitution of social life more generally. The article concludes that the path forward for a sociology of art may lie precisely in not trying to force a reconciliation between macro and micro approaches, or between humanities and social science perspectives