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

Probabilities are single-case, or nothing

D M Appleby

Published Jan 1, 2004• 18 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Physicists have, hitherto, mostly adopted a frequentist conception of probability, according to which probability statements apply only to ensembles. It is argued that we should, instead, adopt an epistemic, or Bayesian conception, in which probabilities are conceived as logical constructs rather than physical realities, and in which probability statements do apply directly to individual events. The question is closely related to the disagreement between the orthodox school of statistical thought and the Bayesian school. It has important technical implications (it makes a difference, what statistical methodology one adopts). It may also have important implications for the interpretation of the quantum state. 1 1.

Related papers

Probabilities are single-case or nothing

D. M. Appleby

Physicists have, hitherto, mostly adopted a frequentist conception of probability, according to which probability statements apply only to ensembles. It is argued that we should, instead, adopt an epistemic, or Bayesian, conception, in which probabilities are conceived as logical constructs rather than physical realities and in which probability statements do apply directly to individual events. The question is closely related to the disagreement between the orthodox school of statistical thought and the Bayesian school. It has important technical implications (it makes a difference what statistical methodology one adopts). It may also have important implications for the interpretation of the quantum state.

arXiv:quant-ph/0408058•Optics and Spectroscopy•Sep 1, 2005•16 citations

On the Applicability of the Probability Concept to Quantum Theory

Peter Mittelstaedt

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1976•8 citations

Facts, Values and Quanta

D. M. Appleby

Quantum mechanics is a fundamentally probabilistic theory (at least so far as the empirical predictions are concerned). It follows that, if one wants to properly understand quantum mechanics, it is essential to clearly understand the meaning of probability statements. The interpretation of probability has excited nearly as much philosophical controversy as the interpretation of quantum mechanics. 20th century physicists have mostly adopted a frequentist conception. In this paper it is argued that we ought, instead, to adopt a logical or Bayesian conception. The paper includes a comparison of the orthodox and Bayesian theories of statistical inference. It concludes with a few remarks concerning the implications for the concept of physical reality.

•Feb 3, 2004•23 citations

Fixing the shifty split, Physics Today, July 2012

N. David Mermin

Quantum mechanics is the most useful and powerful theory physicists have ever devised. Yet today, nearly 90 years after its formulation, disagreement about the meaning of the theory is stronger than ever. New interpretations appear every year. None ever disappear. Probability theory is considerably older than quantum mechanics and has also been plagued from the beginning by questions about its meaning. And quantum mechanics is inherently and famously probabilistic. For the past decade, Carl Caves, Chris Fuchs, and Rüdiger Schack have been arguing that the confusion at the foundations of quantum mechanics arises out of a confusion, prevalent among physicists, about the nature of probability [1]. They maintain that if probability is properly understood, the notorious quantum paradoxes either vanish or assume less vexing forms. Most physicists have a frequentist view of probability: Probabilities describe objective properties of ensembles of “identically prepared” systems. Caves, Fuchs, and Schack take a personalist Bayesian view: An agent assigns a probability p to a single event as a measure of her belief that the event will take place [2]. Such an agent is willing to pay less than $ p for a coupon that will pay her $1 if the event happens, and she is willing to underwrite and sell such a coupon for more than $ p . Surprisingly, the standard rules for probability follow from the requirement that an agent should never face certain loss in a single event. (For example, if p exceeded 1, she would pay more than $1 for a coupon that returned at most $1; if p were negative, she would pay somebody to take a coupon from her that might cost her another $1.) Avoiding certain loss is the only constraint on an agent's probability assignments. The probability of an event is not inherent in that event. Different agents, with different beliefs, will in general assign different probabilities to the same event. The personalist Bayesian view of probability is widely held [3], though not by many physicists. It has profound implications for the meaning of quantum mechanics, which Fuchs and Schack call quantum Bayesianism—QBism for short. Since quantum states determine probabilities, if probabilities are indeed assigned by an agent to express her degree of belief, then the quantum state of a physical system is not inherent in that system but assigned by an agent to encapsulate her beliefs about it. State assignments, like probabilities, are relative to an agent.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 5, 2016•0 citations

Some Historical and Philosophical Aspects of Quantum Probability Theory and its Interpretation

Miklós Rédei

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 2012•12 citations

Is Quantum Mechanics a Probabilistic Theory?

Peter Mittelstaedt

Boston studies in the philosophy of science•Jan 1, 1997•3 citations
Physicists have, hitherto, mostly adopted a frequentist conception of probability, according to which probability statements apply only to ensembles. It is argued that we should, instead, adopt an epistemic, or Bayesian conception, in which probabilities are conceived as logical constructs rather than physical realities, and in which probability statements do apply directly to individual events. The question is closely related to the disagreement between the orthodox school of statistical thought and the Bayesian school. It has important technical implications (it makes a difference, what statistical methodology one adopts). It may also have important implications for the interpretation of the quantum state. 1 1.
Physicists have, hitherto, mostly adopted a frequentist conception of probability, according to which probability statements apply only to ensembles. It is argued that we should, instead, adopt an epistemic, or Bayesian, conception, in which probabilities are conceived as logical constructs rather than physical realities and in which probability statements do apply directly to individual events. The question is closely related to the disagreement between the orthodox school of statistical thought and the Bayesian school. It has important technical implications (it makes a difference what statistical methodology one adopts). It may also have important implications for the interpretation of the quantum state.
Quantum mechanics is a fundamentally probabilistic theory (at least so far as the empirical predictions are concerned). It follows that, if one wants to properly understand quantum mechanics, it is essential to clearly understand the meaning of probability statements. The interpretation of probability has excited nearly as much philosophical controversy as the interpretation of quantum mechanics. 20th century physicists have mostly adopted a frequentist conception. In this paper it is argued that we ought, instead, to adopt a logical or Bayesian conception. The paper includes a comparison of the orthodox and Bayesian theories of statistical inference. It concludes with a few remarks concerning the implications for the concept of physical reality.
Quantum mechanics is the most useful and powerful theory physicists have ever devised. Yet today, nearly 90 years after its formulation, disagreement about the meaning of the theory is stronger than ever. New interpretations appear every year. None ever disappear. Probability theory is considerably older than quantum mechanics and has also been plagued from the beginning by questions about its meaning. And quantum mechanics is inherently and famously probabilistic. For the past decade, Carl Caves, Chris Fuchs, and Rüdiger Schack have been arguing that the confusion at the foundations of quantum mechanics arises out of a confusion, prevalent among physicists, about the nature of probability [1]. They maintain that if probability is properly understood, the notorious quantum paradoxes either vanish or assume less vexing forms. Most physicists have a frequentist view of probability: Probabilities describe objective properties of ensembles of “identically prepared” systems. Caves, Fuchs, and Schack take a personalist Bayesian view: An agent assigns a probability p to a single event as a measure of her belief that the event will take place [2]. Such an agent is willing to pay less than $ p for a coupon that will pay her $1 if the event happens, and she is willing to underwrite and sell such a coupon for more than $ p . Surprisingly, the standard rules for probability follow from the requirement that an agent should never face certain loss in a single event. (For example, if p exceeded 1, she would pay more than $1 for a coupon that returned at most $1; if p were negative, she would pay somebody to take a coupon from her that might cost her another $1.) Avoiding certain loss is the only constraint on an agent's probability assignments. The probability of an event is not inherent in that event. Different agents, with different beliefs, will in general assign different probabilities to the same event. The personalist Bayesian view of probability is widely held [3], though not by many physicists. It has profound implications for the meaning of quantum mechanics, which Fuchs and Schack call quantum Bayesianism—QBism for short. Since quantum states determine probabilities, if probabilities are indeed assigned by an agent to express her degree of belief, then the quantum state of a physical system is not inherent in that system but assigned by an agent to encapsulate her beliefs about it. State assignments, like probabilities, are relative to an agent.