Bruno de Finetti is one of the founding fathers of the subjectivist school of probability, where probabilities are interpreted as rational degrees of belief. His work on the relation between the theorems of probability and rationality is among the corner stones of modern subjective probability theory. De Finetti maintained that rationality requires that degrees of belief be coherent, and he argued that the whole of probability theory could be derived from these coherence conditions. De Finetti’s interpretation of probability has been highly influential in science. This paper focuses on the application of this interpretation to quantum mechanics. We argue that de Finetti held that the coherence conditions of degrees of belief in events depend on their verifiability. Accordingly, the standard coherence conditions of degrees of belief that are familiar from the literature on subjective probability only apply to degrees of belief in events which could (in principle) be jointly verified; and the coherence conditions of degrees of belief in events that cannot be jointly verified are weaker. While the most obvious explanation of de Finetti’s verificationism is the influence of positivism, we argue that it could be motivated by the radical subjectivist and instrumental nature of probability in his interpretation; for as it turns out, in this interpretation it is difficult to make sense of the idea of coherent degrees of belief in, and accordingly probabilities of unverifiable events. We then consider the application of this interpretation to quantum mechanics, concentrating on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment and Bell’s theorem.
Bruno de Finetti is one of the founding fathers of the subjectivist school of probability, where probabilities are interpreted as rational degrees of belief. His work on the relation between the theorems of probability and rationality is among the corner stones of modern subjective probability theory. De Finetti maintained that rationality requires that degrees of belief be coherent, and he argued that the whole of probability theory could be derived from these coherence conditions. De Finetti’s interpretation of probability has been highly influential in science. This paper focuses on the application of this interpretation to quantum mechanics. We argue that de Finetti held that the coherence conditions of degrees of belief in events depend on their verifiability. Accordingly, the standard coherence conditions of degrees of belief that are familiar from the literature on subjective probability only apply to degrees of belief in events which could (in principle) be jointly verified; and the coherence conditions of degrees of belief in events that cannot be jointly verified are weaker. While the most obvious explanation of de Finetti’s verificationism is the influence of positivism, we argue that it could be motivated by the radical subjectivist and instrumental nature of probability in his interpretation; for as it turns out, in this interpretation it is difficult to make sense of the idea of coherent degrees of belief in, and accordingly probabilities of unverifiable events. We then consider the application of this interpretation to quantum mechanics, concentrating on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment and Bell’s theorem.
The classical de Finetti theorem provides an operational definition of the concept of an unknown probability in Bayesian probability theory, where probabilities are taken to be degrees of belief instead of objective states of nature. In this paper, we motivate and review two results that generalize de Finetti's theorem to the quantum mechanical setting: Namely a de Finetti theorem for quantum states and a de Finetti theorem for quantum operations. The quantum-state theorem, in a closely analogous fashion to the original de Finetti theorem, deals with exchangeable density-operator assignments and provides an operational definition of the concept of an "unknown quantum state" in quantum-state tomography. Similarly, the quantum-operation theorem gives an operational definition of an "unknown quantum operation" in quantum-process tomography. These results are especially important for a Bayesian interpretation of quantum mechanics, where quantum states and (at least some) quantum operations are taken to be states of belief rather than states of nature.
We present an elementary proof of the quantum de Finetti representation theorem, a quantum analog of de Finetti’s classical theorem on exchangeable probability assignments. This contrasts with the original proof of Hudson and Moody [Z. Wahrschein. verw. Geb. 33, 343 (1976)], which relies on advanced mathematics and does not share the same potential for generalization. The classical de Finetti theorem provides an operational definition of the concept of an unknown probability in Bayesian probability theory, where probabilities are taken to be degrees of belief instead of objective states of nature. The quantum de Finetti theorem, in a closely analogous fashion, deals with exchangeable density-operator assignments and provides an operational definition of the concept of an “unknown quantum state” in quantum-state tomography. This result is especially important for information-based interpretations of quantum mechanics, where quantum states, like probabilities, are taken to be states of knowledge rather than states of nature. We further demonstrate that the theorem fails for real Hilbert spaces and discuss the significance of this point.
It is often believed that de Finetti's coherence principle naturally leads, in the finite case, to the Kolmogorov's probability theory of random phenomena, which then implies Bell's inequality.Thus, not only a violation of Bell's inequality looks paradoxical in the Kolmogorovian framework, but it should violate also de Finetti's coherence principle.Firstly, we show that this is not the case: the typical theoretical violations of Bell's inequality in quantum physics are in agreement with de Finetti's coherence principle.Secondly, we look for statistical evidence of such violations: we consider the experimental data of measurements of polarization of photons, performed to verify empirically violations of Bell's inequality, and, on the basis of the estimated violation, we test the null hypothesis of Kolmogorovianity for the observed phenomenon.By standard inferential techniques we compute the pvalue for the test and get a clear strong conclusion against the Kolmogorovian hypothesis.
Abstract This paper reviews arguments for the claim that all probabilities arising in quantum mechanics are Bayesian degrees of belief. The starting point is the observation that there is a one-to-one map from quantum states to points on the probability simplex. Bayes’s rule remains valid in quantum theory, provided it is kept in mind that the outcomes of quantum measurements have no preassigned values. The probabilities of quantum measurement outcomes depend explicitly on a quantum prior whose general form will be discussed. Similar to the classical case, the quantum de Finetti theorem simplifies the analysis of repeated quantum trials if the prior is exchangeable. The Bayesian approach to quantum theory described here solves the problem of the ‘collapse of the wave function’. It also provides almost trivial explanations of a number of phenomena in quantum information theory, including the no-cloning theorem and quantum teleportation.
In 1933, Kolmogorov synthesized the basic concepts of probability that were in general use at the time into concepts and deductions from a simple set of axioms that said probability was a σ-additive function from a boolean algebra of events into [0, 1]. In 1932, von Neumann realized that the use of probability in quantum mechanics required a different concept that he formulated as a σ-additive function from the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space onto [0,1]. In 1935, Birkhoff & von Neumann replaced Hilbert space with an algebraic generalization. Today, a slight modification of the Birkhoff-von Neumann generalization is called “quantum logic”. A central problem in the philosophy of probability is the justification of the definition of probability used in a given application. This is usually done by arguing for the rationality of that approach to the situation under consideration. A version of the Dutch book argument given by de Finetti in 1972 is often used to justify the Kolmogorov theory, especially in scientific applications. As von Neumann in 1955 noted, and his criticisms still hold, there is no acceptable foundation for quantum logic. While it is not argued here that a rational approach has been carried out for quantum physics, it is argued that (1) for many important situations found in behavioral science that quantum probability theory is a reasonable choice, and (2) that it has an arguably rational foundation to certain areas of behavioral science, for example, the behavioral paradigm of Between Subjects experiments.
I argue for a realist interpretation of the quantum state. I begin by reviewing and critically evaluating two arguments for an antirealist interpretation of the quantum state, the first derived from the so-called ‘measurement problem’, and the second from the concept of local causality. I argue that existing antirealist interpretations do not solve the measurement problem. Furthermore, I argue that it is possible to construct a local, realist interpretation of quantum mechanics, using methods borrowed from quantum field theory and based on John S. Bell’s concept of ‘local beables’.\nIf the quantum state is interpreted subjectively, then the probabilities it associates with experimental outcomes are themselves subjective. I address the prospects for developing a subjective Bayesian interpretation of quantum mechanical probabilities based on the Quantum de Finetti Representation Theorem. Epistemic interpretations of the quantum state can be divided into those that are epistemic with respect to underlying ontic states, and those that are epistemic with respect to measurement outcomes. The Pusey Barrett and Rudolph (PBR) theorem places serious constraints on the former family of interpretations. I identify an important explanatory gap in the latter sort of interpretation. In particular, if the quantum state is a subjective representation of beliefs about future experimental outcomes, then it is not clear why those experimenters who use quantum mechanics should be better able to negotiate the world than those who do not.\nI then turn to the task of articulating a positive argument for the thesis of quantum state realism. I begin by articulating a minimal set of conditions that any realist interpretation must meet. One assumption built into the PBR result is that systems prepared in a given quantum state have a well-defined set of physical properties, which may be completely or incompletely described by the quantum state. Antirealist interpretations that reject this assumption are therefore compatible with the PBR result. A compelling case for quantum state realism must therefore be made on more general grounds. I consider two concrete examples of phenomena described by quantum mechanics that strongly suggest that the quantum state is genuinely representational in character.