In a quantum-Bayesian take on quantum mechanics, the Born Rule cannot be interpreted as a rule for setting measurement-outcome probabilities from an objective quantum state. But if not, what is the role of the rule? In this paper, we argue that it should be seen as an empirical addition to Bayesian reasoning itself. Particularly, we show how to view the Born Rule as a normative rule in addition to usual Dutch-book coherence. It is a rule that takes into account how one should assign probabilities to the consequences of various intended measurements on a physical system, but explicitly in terms of prior probabilities for and conditional probabilities consequent upon the imagined outcomes of a special counterfactual reference measurement. This interpretation is seen particularly clearly by representing quantum states in terms of probabilities for the outcomes of a fixed, fiducial symmetric informationally complete (SIC) measurement. We further explore the extent to which the general form of the new normative rule implies the
The emergence of intrinsic probability has long been one of the most important and puzzling problems in quantum mechanics, and the law most directly related to this problem is the Born rule. For a century, there have been many attempts to derive the Born rule as a theorem rather than postulating it. However, existing derivations of the Born rule are each based on different frameworks and have attracted different criticisms. The assumptions from which they start are also highly divergent, and the connections between them have not been sufficiently studied. These possible connections are very likely to be the key to answering questions about the origin of probability in quantum mechanics.
This paper focuses on proving the necessity and indispensability of the additivity assumption in the derivation of the Born rule. This supports the view that the Born rule cannot be derived solely from other non-probabilistic quantum or additional postulates. We first prove that additivity cannot be derived from two other commonly used non-probabilistic additional assumptions, non-contextuality and normalization. Then we analyze the crucial role of the additivity assumption in five important existing derivations of the Born rule. These include Gleason's Theorem, Busch's extension of Gleason's Theorem, the Deutsch-Wallace Theorem, Zurek's envariance proof, and the Finkelstein-Hartle Theorem. We show that these derivations either depend heavily on the additivity assumption or lead to obvious loopholes due to the lack of additivity. We also point out some problems arised from the lack of a non-contextuality assumption.
Our results provide a novel insight into the important role of additivity assumption in quantum measurement, as well as into the origin of probability in quantum mechanics.
In the quantum-Bayesian interpretation of quantum theory (or QBism), the Born rule cannot be interpreted as a rule for setting measurement-outcome probabilities from an objective quantum state. But if not, what is the role of the rule? In this paper, the argument is given that it should be seen as an empirical addition to Bayesian reasoning itself. Particularly, it is shown how to view the Born rule as a normative rule in addition to usual Dutch-book coherence. It is a rule that takes into account how one should assign probabilities to the consequences of various intended measurements on a physical system, but explicitly in terms of prior probabilities for and conditional probabilities consequent upon the imagined outcomes of a special counterfactual reference measurement. This interpretation is exemplified by representing quantum states in terms of probabilities for the outcomes of a fixed, fiducial symmetric informationally complete measurement. The extent to which the general form of the new normative rule implies the full state-space structure of quantum mechanics is explored.
Any viable interpretation of quantum theory needs to account for the Born rule, from which the theory gets its probabilistic empirical predictions. In this paper, we give an overview of possible approaches to this problem in the context of the Many Worlds interpretation. We argue that, for structural reasons, none of them can possibly succeed. More precisely, we argue that the Many Worlds interpretation must obtain the Born rule by proceeding either axiomatically, deductively, or inductively, and that all three of these approaches run into general, fundamental obstructions.