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:0907.2064

Has the Born rule been proven?

J. Finkelstein

Published Jul 12, 2009• 3 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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".
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.0907.2064

Related papers

Analysis of Wallace’s Proof of the Born Rule in Everettian Quantum Mechanics: Formal Aspects

André L. G. Mandolesi

arXiv:1504.05259•Foundations of Physics•Jun 5, 2018•5 citations

Analysis of Wallace’s Proof of the Born Rule in Everettian Quantum Mechanics II: Concepts and Axioms

André L. G. Mandolesi

arXiv:1803.08762•Foundations of Physics•Nov 21, 2018•8 citations

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

David Wallace

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.

arXiv:0906.2718•Jun 15, 2009•40 citations

On Two Recent Approaches to the Born Rule

Blake C. Stacey

I comment briefly on derivations of the Born rule presented by Masanes et al. and by Hossenfelder.

arXiv:2103.09910•Mar 17, 2021•1 citation

Born's rule from almost nothing

Sabine Hossenfelder

We here put forward a simple argument for Born's rule based on the requirement that the probability distribution should not be a function of the number of degrees of freedom.

arXiv:2006.14175•Jun 25, 2020•4 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
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.