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

Lessons from nanoscience

Interpreting Quantum Probabilities

Published Feb 1, 2023• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1142/9789811265969_0003

Related papers

Probability in Quantum Mechanics: The Everett Interpretation and the Decision-Theoretic Program

Meng Shuen Chua

The Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is an increasingly popular alternative to the traditional Copenhagen interpretation, but there are a few major issues that prevent the widespread adoption. One of these issues is the origin of probabilities in the Everett interpretation, which this thesis will attempt to survey. The most successful resolution of the probability problem thus far is the decision-theoretic program, which attempts to frame probabilities as outcomes of rational decision making. This marks a departure from orthodox interpretations of probabilities in the physical sciences, where probabilities are thought to be objective, stemming from symmetry considerations. This thesis will attempt to offer evaluations on the decision-theoretic program.

•Jan 1, 2015•0 citations

Quantum Probability

WORLD SCIENTIFIC (EUROPE) eBooks•Jul 7, 2017•0 citations

Quantum Probability

John Edward Gough, Joachim Kupsch

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Mar 28, 2018•0 citations

On the relation between quantum theory and probability

‎Louis Marchildon

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.

arXiv:2108.08848•Aug 19, 2021•0 citations

On the Nature of Probability in Mathematics and Physics

Kirill Mikhaylov

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.

Ideas and Ideals•Sep 25, 2026•0 citations

A unified interpretation of probability

Louis Vervoort

In this article I revisit the frequency interpretation of probability of von Mises, and argue that it contains the key elements of any coherent interpretation of scientific probability - notwithstanding the heavy criticisms von Mises collected from mathematicians and philosophers alike. I propose a modified definition that is not based on von Mises' "infinite collectives" but retains an essential ingredient of his interpretation, namely that probability can only quantitatively be defined for events that are, or can be, repeated in similar conditions and that exhibit frequency stabilisation. New is that the mentioned "conditions" should be "partitioned". Thus, I will partition probabilistic systems into object and environment, or in object, initiating, and probing subsystem, and show that such partitioning solves a series of classic problems. Other consistent interpretations can be unified with frequentism, e.g. Bayesianism à la Jaynes. I explore in detail the tantalising subjective or operationalist touch of probability, and argue that it can be put on objective grounds. One further upshot of the model is that several quantum puzzles can be seen as deriving from an imprecise interpretation of probability.

math.HOCross-listedarXiv:2609.38293•Sep 30, 2026•0 citations
The Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is an increasingly popular alternative to the traditional Copenhagen interpretation, but there are a few major issues that prevent the widespread adoption. One of these issues is the origin of probabilities in the Everett interpretation, which this thesis will attempt to survey. The most successful resolution of the probability problem thus far is the decision-theoretic program, which attempts to frame probabilities as outcomes of rational decision making. This marks a departure from orthodox interpretations of probabilities in the physical sciences, where probabilities are thought to be objective, stemming from symmetry considerations. This thesis will attempt to offer evaluations on the decision-theoretic program.
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.
In this article I revisit the frequency interpretation of probability of von Mises, and argue that it contains the key elements of any coherent interpretation of scientific probability - notwithstanding the heavy criticisms von Mises collected from mathematicians and philosophers alike. I propose a modified definition that is not based on von Mises' "infinite collectives" but retains an essential ingredient of his interpretation, namely that probability can only quantitatively be defined for events that are, or can be, repeated in similar conditions and that exhibit frequency stabilisation. New is that the mentioned "conditions" should be "partitioned". Thus, I will partition probabilistic systems into object and environment, or in object, initiating, and probing subsystem, and show that such partitioning solves a series of classic problems. Other consistent interpretations can be unified with frequentism, e.g. Bayesianism à la Jaynes. I explore in detail the tantalising subjective or operationalist touch of probability, and argue that it can be put on objective grounds. One further upshot of the model is that several quantum puzzles can be seen as deriving from an imprecise interpretation of probability.