Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0906.2718

A formal proof of the Born rule from decision-theoretic assumptions

David Wallace

Published Jun 15, 2009• 40 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

I develop the decision-theoretic approach to quantum probability, originally proposed by David Deutsch, into a mathematically rigorous proof of the Born rule in (Everett-interpreted) quantum mechanics. I sketch the argument informally, then prove it formally, and lastly consider a number of proposed ``counter-examples'' to show exactly which premises of the argument they violate.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.0906.2718

Related papers

How to Prove the Born Rule

David Wallace

Abstract This chapter develops the decision-theoretic approach to quantum probability, originally proposed by David Deutsch, into a mathematically rigorous proof of the Born rule in (Everett interpreted) quantum mechanics. It sketches the argument informally, then proves it formally, and lastly considers a number of proposed ‘counter-examples’ to show exactly which premises of the argument they violate.

•Jun 24, 2010•68 citations

Decision-based Probabilities in the Everett Interpretation: Comments on Wallace and Greaves

Huw Price

It is often objected that the Everett interpretation of QM cannot make adequate sense of quantum probabilities, in one or both of two senses: either it cannot make sense of probability at all, or cannot explain why probability should be governed by the Born rule. David Deutsch has attempted to meet these objections. He argues not only that rational decision under uncertainty makes sense in the Everett interpretation, and that under reasonable assumptions, the credences of a rational agent in an Everett world should be constrained by the Born rule. David Wallace has recently developed and defended Deutsch's proposal, and greatly clarified its conceptual basis. In this note I outline some concerns about the Deutsch argument, as presented by Wallace, and about related proposals by Hilary Greaves. In particular, I argue that the argument is circular, at a crucial point.

•Mar 1, 2006•0 citations

Deutsch on quantum decision theory

Peter J. Lewis

A major problem facing no-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics in the tradition of Everett is how to understand the probabilistic axiom of quantum mechanics (the Born rule) in the context of a deterministic theory in which every outcome of a measurement occurs. Deutsch claims to derive a decision-theoretic analogue of the Born rule from the non-probabilistic part of quantum mechanics and some non-probabilistic axioms of classical decision theory, and hence concludes that no probabilistic axiom is needed. I argue that Deutsch’s derivation begs the question.

•Jan 1, 2003•5 citations

Has the Born rule been proven?

J. Finkelstein

This note is a somewhat-lighthearted comment on a recent paper by David Wallace, arXiv:0906.2718[quant-ph] entitled "A formal proof of the Born rule from decision-theoretic assumptions".

arXiv:0907.2064•Jul 12, 2009•3 citations

Everett and the Born Rule

Alastair I. M. Rae

During the last ten years or so, derivations of the Born rule based on decision theory have been proposed and developed, and it is claimed that these are valid in the context of the Everett interpretation. This claim is critically assessed and it is shown that one of its key assumptions, although natural in the context of the Copenhagen interpretation, is not consistent with that of Everett. It is further argued that any interpretation that relates outcome likelihood to the expansion coefficients connecting the wavefunction with the eigenfunctions of the measurement operator must be inconsistent with the Everett interpretation.

arXiv:0810.2657•Oct 15, 2008•0 citations

Symmetry, Rationality, and the Born Rule

David Wallace

Building on work originally carried out by David Deutsch, the chapter develops a mathematically rigorous framework for discussing the quantum probability rule in terms of the preferences between various courses of action of rational agents. Within this framework, the chapter proves formally that any rational agent who believes in the truth of Everettian quantum mechanics and who knows (or thinks they know) the current quantum state of their branch will act as if future branching was a probabilistic process with the probabilities given by the standard quantum-mechanical probability rule (the ‘Born rule’). The chapter concludes by analysing other proposed rules for action in a quantum universe and showing where they violate the axioms for quantum decision making which it proposes and defends.

Oxford University Press eBooks•May 24, 2012•0 citations
I develop the decision-theoretic approach to quantum probability, originally proposed by David Deutsch, into a mathematically rigorous proof of the Born rule in (Everett-interpreted) quantum mechanics. I sketch the argument informally, then prove it formally, and lastly consider a number of proposed ``counter-examples'' to show exactly which premises of the argument they violate.
It is often objected that the Everett interpretation of QM cannot make adequate sense of quantum probabilities, in one or both of two senses: either it cannot make sense of probability at all, or cannot explain why probability should be governed by the Born rule. David Deutsch has attempted to meet these objections. He argues not only that rational decision under uncertainty makes sense in the Everett interpretation, and that under reasonable assumptions, the credences of a rational agent in an Everett world should be constrained by the Born rule. David Wallace has recently developed and defended Deutsch's proposal, and greatly clarified its conceptual basis. In this note I outline some concerns about the Deutsch argument, as presented by Wallace, and about related proposals by Hilary Greaves. In particular, I argue that the argument is circular, at a crucial point.
A major problem facing no-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics in the tradition of Everett is how to understand the probabilistic axiom of quantum mechanics (the Born rule) in the context of a deterministic theory in which every outcome of a measurement occurs. Deutsch claims to derive a decision-theoretic analogue of the Born rule from the non-probabilistic part of quantum mechanics and some non-probabilistic axioms of classical decision theory, and hence concludes that no probabilistic axiom is needed. I argue that Deutsch’s derivation begs the question.
During the last ten years or so, derivations of the Born rule based on decision theory have been proposed and developed, and it is claimed that these are valid in the context of the Everett interpretation. This claim is critically assessed and it is shown that one of its key assumptions, although natural in the context of the Copenhagen interpretation, is not consistent with that of Everett. It is further argued that any interpretation that relates outcome likelihood to the expansion coefficients connecting the wavefunction with the eigenfunctions of the measurement operator must be inconsistent with the Everett interpretation.
Building on work originally carried out by David Deutsch, the chapter develops a mathematically rigorous framework for discussing the quantum probability rule in terms of the preferences between various courses of action of rational agents. Within this framework, the chapter proves formally that any rational agent who believes in the truth of Everettian quantum mechanics and who knows (or thinks they know) the current quantum state of their branch will act as if future branching was a probabilistic process with the probabilities given by the standard quantum-mechanical probability rule (the ‘Born rule’). The chapter concludes by analysing other proposed rules for action in a quantum universe and showing where they violate the axioms for quantum decision making which it proposes and defends.