Dear David,

Many thanks for sending the draft of your very nice new book. I have two
comments.

The first is about your inability to see Lockwood's point (See page 54) 
Lockwood is completely right. There is no need at all for there to be any
repeated experiment in order to test the statistical predictions of quantum
theory (or any similar statistical theory). Any sequence of experiments is just
another experiment, anyway, so we can always just talk about a single
experiment. And any sequence of results r is just a result R. In a statistical
theory each R is assigned a probability P(R). Then one can specify in any
way one likes, beforehand, any single collection C of results R such that
 
           P(C)= Sum over the P(R) with R in C. 

satisfies

         1-P(C)< 0.00001 .

If one then does the experiment and finds that R is in C then one begins to
doubt that the theory is correct and considers an new experiment that is twice
as long, so that

        1-P(C') < 0.0000000001 .

If the new experiment gives R' in C' then one has verrry serious doubts about
the correctness of the theory, and discards it a very probably wrong.
There need be no repetition of any subexperiment: that is only a very special
case.

My other comment is about your main thesis, that there is a logical alternative
between determinism and chance. I was happy to see that so many other saw
things the same way that I have. I do not think my thoughts stemmed from Hume,
though, of course, his thought may pervade our culture so much that I was
influenced by it unbeknowst to me. But I do not think you can dismiss that
idea (that either my choice is determined by other things, or it is not
determined by other things, in which case we say there is an element of chance)
so easily as just accepting Hume's error. I would like to believe that you
have put your finger on a way out, but although I read your argument with
a sympathetic ear I was unable to see that it made sense. Something is missing,
and I think a satisfactoy reasoned answer involves more than just accepting our 
intuition. But your work may help lead to a solution: you put the matter
out there in a strong way.

I enclose a first draft of my most recent paper, which will appear in a volume
edited by Osaka (that you also may have been asked to contribute to).

Best regards,   Henry