The aim of the article is to argue that the interpretations of quantum mechanics and of probability are much closer than usually thought. Indeed, a detailed analysis of the concept of probability (within the standard frequency interpretation of R. von Mises) reveals that this notion always refers to an observing system. Therefore the instrumentalist aspects of quantum mechanics, and in particular the enigmatic role of the observer in the Copenhagen interpretation, derive from a precise understanding of probability.
The aim of the article is to argue that the interpretations of quantum mechanics and of probability are much closer than usually thought. Indeed, a detailed analysis of the concept of probability (within the standard frequency interpretation of R. von Mises) reveals that this notion always refers to an observing system. Therefore the instrumentalist aspects of quantum mechanics, and in particular the enigmatic role of the observer in the Copenhagen interpretation, derive from a precise understanding of probability.
The aim of the article is to argue that the interpretations of quantum mechanics and of probability are much closer than usually thought. Indeed, a detailed analysis of the concept of probability (within the standard frequency theory of R. von Mises) reveals that the latter concept always refers to an observing system. The enigmatic role of the observer in the Copenhagen interpretation therefore derives from a precise understanding of probability. Besides explaining several elements of the Copenhagen interpretation, our model also allows to reinterpret recent results from 'relational quantum mechanics', and to question the premises of the 'subjective approach to quantum probabilities'.
In the following we revisit the frequency interpretation of probability of Richard von Mises, in order to bring the essential implicit notions in focus. Following von Mises, we argue that probability can only be defined for events that can be repeated in similar conditions, and that exhibit 'frequency stabilization'. The central idea of the present article is that the mentioned 'conditions' should be well-defined and 'partitioned'. More precisely, we will divide probabilistic systems into object, environment, and probing subsystem, and show that such partitioning allows to solve a wide variety of classic paradoxes of probability theory. As a corollary, we arrive at the surprising conclusion that at least one central idea of the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics is a direct consequence of the meaning of probability. More precisely, the idea that the "observer influences the quantum system" is obvious if one realizes that quantum systems are probabilistic systems; it holds for all probabilistic systems, whether quantum or classical.
The topic of probabilty in quantum mechanics is rather vast, and in this article, we shall choose to discuss it from the perspective of whether and in what sense quantum mechanics requires a generalisation of the usual (Kolmogorovian) concept of probability. We shall focus on the case of finite-dimensional quantum mechanics (which is analogous to that of discrete probability spaces), partly for simplicity and partly for ease of generalisation. While we shall largely focus on formal aspects of quantum probability (in particular the non-existence of joint distributions for incompatible observables), our discussion will relate also to notorious issues in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Indeed, whether quantum probability can or cannot be ultimately reduced to classical probability connects rather nicely to the question of 'hidden variables' in quantum mechanics. An abridged version of this essay will appear in A. Hajek and C. Hitchcock (eds.), 'The Oxford Handbook of Probability and Philosophy', Oxford University Press. The present version includes in particular many more footnotes and references and the Appendix with the proofs of the Lemma and Proposition of Section 5.
Abstract This chapter surveys various proposals to interpret—that is, make sense of—quantum mechanics. We could attempt to think of quantum mechanics in purely instrumentalist terms, as an algorithm to predict observed experimental results. But this fits badly with scientific practice and is probably not viable. We could attempt to modify quantum mechanics itself to resolve the paradoxes, and there are some simple models that attempt to do that: some are ‘hidden-variable’ theories that add extra properties to the theory, some are ‘dynamical-collapse’ theories that modify the theory’s equations. But none of these models succeed in reproducing quantum theory’s predictions outside a relatively narrow range of applications. Or we could try to take the apparent indefiniteness of quantum mechanics literally, and interpret it as a theory of many parallel worlds. The correct interpretation of quantum mechanics remains controversial, but the search for understanding and interpretation of the theory has led to very substantial scientific results and is likely to lead to more.
The theory of probability and the quantum theory, the one mathematical and the other physical, are related in that each admits a number of very different interpretations. It has been proposed that the conceptual problems of the quantum theory could be, if not resolved, at least mitigated by a proper interpretation of probability. We rather show, through a historical and analytical overview of probability and quantum theory, that if some interpretations of the one and the other go along particularly well, none follows in a unique way.
The article discusses approaches to understanding the nature of probability in mathematics and physics with the consequences of these approaches, as well as the difficulties that arise. The ontological status of probability is discussed. It is shown that probability theory, contrary to R. Mises, should be classified as a mathematical science, using the definition formulated by A.N. Kolmogorov. The application of this definition in practice is provided within the framework of the classical approach, provided that the connection with physical reality is defined through the concept of equal opportunity. To do this, the concepts of simple and complex events are introduced, and the method of decomposing complex events into simple ones is explained. The point of view is substantiated, according to which a mathematical probability determined and related to physical reality in this way can be considered an objective probability, that is, existing independently of any tests. Various interpretations of quantum mechanics and approaches to understanding probability are also revealed. It is shown that in physics today the existing approaches to understanding the nature of probability contradict each other. In the Bohm interpretation, probability is an analogue of the classical approach – statistical objective probability, which has a mathematical formalization, and in quantum Bayesianism, probability quantifies the degree of reliability and depends on the subject conducting the experiment. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics tries to eliminate the difficulties associated with combining the wave and corpuscular properties of light and electron beams into a single picture by giving the ontological status of probability, which leads to the problem of understanding physical reality. The article argues for the need for a new connection between the mathematical description of probability and physical reality. The empirical (frequency) approach of R. Mises is analyzed, which causes a lot of criticism, as it does not have a clear consistent formalization. The article argues that this approach is inconsistent with quantum mechanics. The probability given by M. Born in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is also considered, which formulates a new definition of probability, which does not exclude the difficulties associated with the physical interpretation of probability. Born’s approach is based on the classical approach and is reduced to a formal axiomatic definition, which assumes the interpretation of probability as a mathematical construct. The connection of probability with physical reality and the consistency of the statistical method of finding probability values remain unresolved problems, which creates a dualism of understanding probability: in mathematics – one thing, in physics – another. If in the mathematical approach, the solution of these problems is carried out through the connection of probability with physical properties, then in quantum mechanics, in the Copenhagen interpretation, problems persist, which is caused by giving the wave function an ontological status.