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

arXiv:quant-ph/0006116 · American Journal of Physics

Objective probabilities, quantum counterfactuals, and the ABL rule—A response to R. E. Kastner

Ulrich Mohrhoff

Published Aug 1, 2001• 25 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The ABL rule is derived as a tool of standard quantum mechanics. The ontological significance of the existence of objective probabilities is discussed. Objections by Kastner [Am. J. Phys. 69, 860–863 (2001)] and others to counterfactual uses of the ABL rule are refuted. Metaphysical presumptions leading to such views as Kastner is defending in her Comment are examined and shown to be unwarranted.

DOI
10.1119/1.1371920

Related papers

Comment on Mohrhoff's "What quantum mechanics is trying to tell us"

Ruth E. Kastner

Mohrhoff proposes using the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) rule for time-symmetric ``objective'' (meaning non-epistemic) probabilities corresponding to the possible outcomes of not-actually-performed measurements between specified pre- and post-selection measurement outcomes. It is emphasized that the ABL rule was formulated on the assumption that such intervening measurements are actually made and that it does not necessarily apply to counterfactual situations. The exact nature of the application of the ABL rule considered by Mohrhoff is made explicit and is shown to fall short of his stated counterfactual claim.

arXiv:quant-ph/0003098•Mar 21, 2000•2 citations

Comment on “What quantum mechanics is trying to tell us,” by Ulrich Mohrhoff [Am. J. Phys. 68 (8), 728–745 (2000)]

Ruth E. Kastner

Mohrhoff proposes using the Aharonov–Bergmann–Lebowitz (ABL) rule for time-symmetric “objective” (meaning nonepistemic) probabilities corresponding to the possible outcomes of not-actually-performed measurements between specified pre- and post-selection measurement outcomes. It is emphasized that the ABL rule was formulated on the assumption that such intervening measurements are actually made and that it does not necessarily apply to counterfactual situations. The exact nature of the application of the ABL rule considered by Mohrhoff is made explicit and is shown to fall short of his stated counterfactual claim.

American Journal of Physics•Aug 1, 2001•5 citations

The Utility of Time-Symmetric Quantum Counterfactuals: A Response to Kastner

Ulrich Mohrhoff

Kastner's (Philosophy of Science 70, 2003, pp. 145--163) recent objections to the counterfactual usage of the time-symmetric Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz rule by the author, especially her claims that the resulting time-symmetric quantum counterfactuals are vacuous or invalid, are examined and shown to be unfounded or beside the point.

arXiv:0801.2215•Jan 15, 2008•0 citations

Closing a Loophole in the Case Against the Counterfactual Usage of the ABL Rule

Ruth E. Kastner

A currently discussed interpretation of quantum theory, Time-Symmetrized Quantum Theory, makes certain claims about the properties of systems between pre- and post- selection measurements. These claims are based on a counterfactual usage of the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) rule for calculating the probabilities of measurement outcomes between such measurements. It has been argued by several authors that the counterfactual usage of the ABL rule is, in general, incorrect. This paper examines what might appear to be a loophole in those arguments and shows that this apparent loophole cannot be used to support a counterfactual interpretation of the ABL rule. It is noted that the invalidity of the counterfactual usage of the ABL rule implies that the characterization of those outcomes receiving probability 1 in a counterfactual application of the rule as `elements of reality' is, in general, unfounded.

arXiv:quant-ph/9807015•Jul 5, 1998•1 citation

Quantum Probabilism: New Foundations for Subjective Quantum Probabilities

Jeremy Steeger

At the intersection of the foundations of statistics and the foundations of quantum theory, one comes across a hotly-debated question: what are the probabilities in quantum theories? Do they all reflect the subjective opinions of various agents, or do some of them reflect objective features of the world? One answer—Lewisian dualism, a view that takes some quantum probabilities to be subjective and others to be objective—has gained near-consensus among philosophers of science. However, our most sophisticated defense of this view (due to Deutsch, Wallace, Saunders, Myrvold, Greaves, and others) has two significant problems. First, it requires a very particular approach to the measurement problem (namely, the Everett interpretation). Second, it relies on the pragmatic goals of scientists (e.g., their aim to avoid losses in bets) rather than their epistemic goals (e.g., their aim to accurately describe the world). I give a new defense of dualism that rectifies both of these problems. I generalize the Deutsch-Wallace argument to defend the objective probabilities in a host of realist approaches to measurement, and I modify the accuracy-dominance argument for probabilism to defend the subjective probabilities in these approaches. I also critically examine several previous attempts to interpret all quantum probabilities subjectively.

•Nov 16, 2022•0 citations

Quantum mechanics and elements of reality

Ulrich Mohrhoff

It is widely accepted that a Born probability of 1 is sufficient for the existence of a corresponding element of reality. Recently Vaidman has extended this idea to the ABL probabilities of the time-symmetrized version of quantum mechanics originated by Aharonov, Bergmann, and Lebowitz. Several authors have objected to Vaidman's time-symmetrized elements of reality without casting doubt on the widely accepted sufficiency condition for `ordinary' elements of reality. In this paper I show that while the proper truth condition for a quantum counterfactual is an ABL probability of 1, neither a Born probability of 1 nor an ABL probability of 1 is sufficient for the existence of an element of reality. The reason this is so is that the contingent properties of quantum-mechanical systems are extrinsic. To obtain this result, I need to discuss objective probabilities, retroactive causality, and the objectivity or otherwise of the psychological arrow of time. One consequence of the extrinsic nature of quantum-mechanical properties is that quantum mechanics presupposes property-defining actual events (or states of affairs) and therefore cannot be called upon to account for their occurrence (existence). Neither these events nor the correlations between them are capable of explanation, the former because they are causal primaries, the latter because they are fundamental: there are no underlying causal processes. Causal connections are something we project onto the statistical correlations, and this works only to the extent that statistical variations can be ignored. There are nevertheless important conclusions to be drawn from the quantum-mechanical correlations, such as the spatial nonseparability of the world.

arXiv:quant-ph/9904081•Apr 26, 1999•1 citation
The ABL rule is derived as a tool of standard quantum mechanics. The ontological significance of the existence of objective probabilities is discussed. Objections by Kastner [Am. J. Phys. 69, 860–863 (2001)] and others to counterfactual uses of the ABL rule are refuted. Metaphysical presumptions leading to such views as Kastner is defending in her Comment are examined and shown to be unwarranted.
Mohrhoff proposes using the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) rule for time-symmetric ``objective'' (meaning non-epistemic) probabilities corresponding to the possible outcomes of not-actually-performed measurements between specified pre- and post-selection measurement outcomes. It is emphasized that the ABL rule was formulated on the assumption that such intervening measurements are actually made and that it does not necessarily apply to counterfactual situations. The exact nature of the application of the ABL rule considered by Mohrhoff is made explicit and is shown to fall short of his stated counterfactual claim.
Mohrhoff proposes using the Aharonov–Bergmann–Lebowitz (ABL) rule for time-symmetric “objective” (meaning nonepistemic) probabilities corresponding to the possible outcomes of not-actually-performed measurements between specified pre- and post-selection measurement outcomes. It is emphasized that the ABL rule was formulated on the assumption that such intervening measurements are actually made and that it does not necessarily apply to counterfactual situations. The exact nature of the application of the ABL rule considered by Mohrhoff is made explicit and is shown to fall short of his stated counterfactual claim.
A currently discussed interpretation of quantum theory, Time-Symmetrized Quantum Theory, makes certain claims about the properties of systems between pre- and post- selection measurements. These claims are based on a counterfactual usage of the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) rule for calculating the probabilities of measurement outcomes between such measurements. It has been argued by several authors that the counterfactual usage of the ABL rule is, in general, incorrect. This paper examines what might appear to be a loophole in those arguments and shows that this apparent loophole cannot be used to support a counterfactual interpretation of the ABL rule. It is noted that the invalidity of the counterfactual usage of the ABL rule implies that the characterization of those outcomes receiving probability 1 in a counterfactual application of the rule as `elements of reality' is, in general, unfounded.
At the intersection of the foundations of statistics and the foundations of quantum theory, one comes across a hotly-debated question: what are the probabilities in quantum theories? Do they all reflect the subjective opinions of various agents, or do some of them reflect objective features of the world? One answer—Lewisian dualism, a view that takes some quantum probabilities to be subjective and others to be objective—has gained near-consensus among philosophers of science. However, our most sophisticated defense of this view (due to Deutsch, Wallace, Saunders, Myrvold, Greaves, and others) has two significant problems. First, it requires a very particular approach to the measurement problem (namely, the Everett interpretation). Second, it relies on the pragmatic goals of scientists (e.g., their aim to avoid losses in bets) rather than their epistemic goals (e.g., their aim to accurately describe the world). I give a new defense of dualism that rectifies both of these problems. I generalize the Deutsch-Wallace argument to defend the objective probabilities in a host of realist approaches to measurement, and I modify the accuracy-dominance argument for probabilism to defend the subjective probabilities in these approaches. I also critically examine several previous attempts to interpret all quantum probabilities subjectively.
It is widely accepted that a Born probability of 1 is sufficient for the existence of a corresponding element of reality. Recently Vaidman has extended this idea to the ABL probabilities of the time-symmetrized version of quantum mechanics originated by Aharonov, Bergmann, and Lebowitz. Several authors have objected to Vaidman's time-symmetrized elements of reality without casting doubt on the widely accepted sufficiency condition for `ordinary' elements of reality. In this paper I show that while the proper truth condition for a quantum counterfactual is an ABL probability of 1, neither a Born probability of 1 nor an ABL probability of 1 is sufficient for the existence of an element of reality. The reason this is so is that the contingent properties of quantum-mechanical systems are extrinsic. To obtain this result, I need to discuss objective probabilities, retroactive causality, and the objectivity or otherwise of the psychological arrow of time. One consequence of the extrinsic nature of quantum-mechanical properties is that quantum mechanics presupposes property-defining actual events (or states of affairs) and therefore cannot be called upon to account for their occurrence (existence). Neither these events nor the correlations between them are capable of explanation, the former because they are causal primaries, the latter because they are fundamental: there are no underlying causal processes. Causal connections are something we project onto the statistical correlations, and this works only to the extent that statistical variations can be ignored. There are nevertheless important conclusions to be drawn from the quantum-mechanical correlations, such as the spatial nonseparability of the world.