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

Deutsch on quantum decision theory

Peter J. Lewis

Published Jan 1, 2003• 5 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

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.

Related papers

Quantum probability from decision theory?

H. Barnum, Carlton M. Caves, J. Finkelstein +2 more

In a recent paper, Deutsch claims to derive the ‘probabilistic predictions of quantum theory’ from the ‘non–probabilistic axioms of quantum theory’ and the ‘nonprobabilistic part of classical decision theory.’ We show that his derivation includes a crucial hidden assumption that vitiates the force of his argument. Furthermore, we point out that in classical decision theory a standard set of non–probabilistic axioms is already sufficient to endow possible outcomes with a natural probability structure. Within that context we argue that Gleason's theorem, relying on fewer assumptions than Deutsch, provides a compelling derivation of the quantum probability law.

arXiv:quant-ph/9907024•Proceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•May 8, 2000•78 citations

Quantum Probability from Decision Theory?

H. Barnum, Carlton M. Caves, J. Finkelstein +2 more

In a recent paper, Deutsch claims to derive the `probabilistic predictions of quan-tum theory ’ from the `non-probabilistic axioms of quantum theory ’ and the `non-probabilistic part of classical decision theory. ’ We show that his derivation includes a crucial hidden assumption that vitiates the force of his argument. Furthermore, we point out that in classical decision theory a standard set of non-probabilistic axioms is already su ¯ cient to endow possible outcomes with a natural probability structure. Within that context we argue that Gleason’s theorem, relying on fewer assump-tions than Deutsch, provides a compelling derivation of the quantum probability law.

•Jan 1, 2000•101 citations

A Note on Deutsch’s “Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions”

Malcolm R. Forster

ABSTRACT: David Deutsch has a forthcoming article called “Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions " in which he claims to derive the standard probabilistic interpretation of the wavefunction from non-probabilistic considerations. In this note, I try to develop his argument in a classical context, to see whether the same ideas can generate probabilistic conclusions from nonprobabilistic assumptions in a more general way. While my answer is negative, the attempt pinpoints the parts of Deutsch’s quantum mechanical argument that must rely on special features of the formalism (assuming that his proof is correct). 1. No Probabilities In, No Probabilities Out? You cannot derive an ‘ought ’ from an ‘is’. And I believe that it was Popper (1959) who once said, in response to those who think that randomness can be defined nonprobabilistically, that one cannot derive a probabilistic conclusion from non-probabilistic premises. Yet this is exactly what Deutsch (to appear) claims for quantum mechanical probabilities. Historically in the development of quantum theory, the Schrödinger

•Jan 1, 1999•0 citations

Probability in Everettian Quantum Mechanics

Peter J. Lewis

The main difficulty facing no-collapse theories of quantum mechanics in the Everettian tradition concerns the role of probability within a theory in which every possible outcome of a measurement actually occurs. The problem is two-fold: First, what do probability claims mean within such a theory? Second, what ensures that the probabilities attached to measurement outcomes match those of standard quantum mechanics? Deutsch has recently proposed a decision-theoretic solution to the second problem, according to which agents are rationally required to weight the outcomes of measurements according to the standard quantum-mechanical probability measure. I show that this argument admits counterexamples, and hence fails to establish the standard probability weighting as a rational requirement.

Manuscrito•Sep 1, 2005•45 citations

Probability in the Everett World: Comments on Wallace and Greaves

Huw Price

It is often objected that the Everett interpretation of QM cannot make sense of quantum probabilities, in one or both of two ways: either it can't make sense of probability at all, or it can't 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, but also that under reasonable assumptions, the credences of a rational agent in an Everett world should be constrained by the Born rule. David Wallace has developed and defended Deutsch's proposal, and greatly clarified its conceptual basis. In particular, he has stressed its reliance on the distinguishing symmetry of the Everett view, viz., that all possible outcomes of a quantum measurement are treated as equally real. The argument thus tries to make a virtue of what has usually been seen as the main obstacle to making sense of probability in the Everett world. In this note I outline some objections to the Deutsch-Wallace argument, and to related proposals by Hilary Greaves about the epistemology of Everettian QM. (In the latter case, my arguments include an appeal to an Everettian analogue of the Sleeping Beauty problem.) The common thread to these objections is that the symmetry in question remains a very significant obstacle to making sense of probability in the Everett interpretation.

arXiv:quant-ph/0604191•Apr 26, 2006•93 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
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.
In a recent paper, Deutsch claims to derive the ‘probabilistic predictions of quantum theory’ from the ‘non–probabilistic axioms of quantum theory’ and the ‘nonprobabilistic part of classical decision theory.’ We show that his derivation includes a crucial hidden assumption that vitiates the force of his argument. Furthermore, we point out that in classical decision theory a standard set of non–probabilistic axioms is already sufficient to endow possible outcomes with a natural probability structure. Within that context we argue that Gleason's theorem, relying on fewer assumptions than Deutsch, provides a compelling derivation of the quantum probability law.
In a recent paper, Deutsch claims to derive the `probabilistic predictions of quan-tum theory ’ from the `non-probabilistic axioms of quantum theory ’ and the `non-probabilistic part of classical decision theory. ’ We show that his derivation includes a crucial hidden assumption that vitiates the force of his argument. Furthermore, we point out that in classical decision theory a standard set of non-probabilistic axioms is already su ¯ cient to endow possible outcomes with a natural probability structure. Within that context we argue that Gleason’s theorem, relying on fewer assump-tions than Deutsch, provides a compelling derivation of the quantum probability law.
ABSTRACT: David Deutsch has a forthcoming article called “Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions " in which he claims to derive the standard probabilistic interpretation of the wavefunction from non-probabilistic considerations. In this note, I try to develop his argument in a classical context, to see whether the same ideas can generate probabilistic conclusions from nonprobabilistic assumptions in a more general way. While my answer is negative, the attempt pinpoints the parts of Deutsch’s quantum mechanical argument that must rely on special features of the formalism (assuming that his proof is correct). 1. No Probabilities In, No Probabilities Out? You cannot derive an ‘ought ’ from an ‘is’. And I believe that it was Popper (1959) who once said, in response to those who think that randomness can be defined nonprobabilistically, that one cannot derive a probabilistic conclusion from non-probabilistic premises. Yet this is exactly what Deutsch (to appear) claims for quantum mechanical probabilities. Historically in the development of quantum theory, the Schrödinger
The main difficulty facing no-collapse theories of quantum mechanics in the Everettian tradition concerns the role of probability within a theory in which every possible outcome of a measurement actually occurs. The problem is two-fold: First, what do probability claims mean within such a theory? Second, what ensures that the probabilities attached to measurement outcomes match those of standard quantum mechanics? Deutsch has recently proposed a decision-theoretic solution to the second problem, according to which agents are rationally required to weight the outcomes of measurements according to the standard quantum-mechanical probability measure. I show that this argument admits counterexamples, and hence fails to establish the standard probability weighting as a rational requirement.
It is often objected that the Everett interpretation of QM cannot make sense of quantum probabilities, in one or both of two ways: either it can't make sense of probability at all, or it can't 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, but also that under reasonable assumptions, the credences of a rational agent in an Everett world should be constrained by the Born rule. David Wallace has developed and defended Deutsch's proposal, and greatly clarified its conceptual basis. In particular, he has stressed its reliance on the distinguishing symmetry of the Everett view, viz., that all possible outcomes of a quantum measurement are treated as equally real. The argument thus tries to make a virtue of what has usually been seen as the main obstacle to making sense of probability in the Everett world. In this note I outline some objections to the Deutsch-Wallace argument, and to related proposals by Hilary Greaves about the epistemology of Everettian QM. (In the latter case, my arguments include an appeal to an Everettian analogue of the Sleeping Beauty problem.) The common thread to these objections is that the symmetry in question remains a very significant obstacle to making sense of probability in the Everett interpretation.
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.