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/0211104

Quantum Probability and Decision Theory, Revisited

David Wallace

Published Nov 18, 2002• 35 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

An extended analysis is given of the program, originally suggested by Deutsch, of solving the probability problem in the Everett interpretation by means of decision theory. Deutsch's own proof is discussed, and alternatives are presented which are based upon different decision theories and upon Gleason's Theorem. It is argued that decision theory gives Everettians most or all of what they need from `probability'. Some consequences of (Everettian) quantum mechanics for decision theory itself are also discussed.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0211104

Related papers

Probability in the Everett Interpretation

Hilary Greaves

Abstract The Everett (many‐worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics faces a prima facie problem concerning quantum probabilities. Research in this area has been fast‐paced over the last few years, following a controversial suggestion by David Deutsch that decision theory can solve the problem. This article provides a non‐technical introduction to the decision‐theoretic program, and a sketch of the current state of the debate.

Philosophy Compass•Dec 21, 2006•95 citations

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

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions: Can Savage Salvage Everettian Probability?

Huw Price

Abstract Critics object that the Everett view cannot make sense of quantum probabilities, in one or both of two ways: either it cannot make sense of probability at all, or it cannot explain why probability should be governed by the Born rule. David Deutsch has attempted to meet these objections by appealing to an Everettian version of Savage's rational decision theory. Deutsch argues not only that an analogue of classical decision under uncertainty makes sense in an Everett world; but also that under reasonable assumptions, the betting odds of a rational Everettian agent should be constrained by the Born rule. Deutsch's proposal has been defended and developed by David Wallace, and in a different form by Hilary Greaves. This chapter offers some objections to the Deutsch–Wallace–Greaves argument, focussing in particular on the supposed analogy with classical decision under uncertainty.

arXiv:0802.1390•Jun 24, 2010•85 citations

Epistemology Quantized: circumstances in which we should come to believe in the Everett interpretation

David Wallace

I consider exactly what is involved in a solution to the probability problem of the Everett interpretation, in the light of recent work on applying considerations from decision theory to that problem. I suggest an overall framework for understanding probability in a physical theory, and conclude that this framework, when applied to the Everett interpretation, yields the result that that interpretation satisfactorily solves the measurement problem. 1. Introduction 2. What is probability? 2.1Objective probability and the Principal Principle 2.2Three ways of satisfying the functional definition 2.3Cautious functionalism 2.4Is the functional definition complete? 3. The Everett interpretation and subjective uncertainty 3.1Interpreting quantum mechanics 3.2The need for subjective uncertainty 3.3Saunders' argument for subjective uncertainty 3.4Objections to Saunders' argument 3.5Subjective uncertainty again: arguments from interpretative charity 3.6Quantum weights and the functional definition of probability 4. Rejecting subjective uncertainty 4.1The fission program 4.2Against the fission program 5. Justifying the axioms of decision theory 5.1The primitive status of the decision-theoretic axioms 5.2Holistic scepticism 5.3The role of an explanation of decision theory 6. Conclusion

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Dec 1, 2006•105 citations

Quantum probability from decision theory?

H. Barnum, Carlton M. Caves, J. Finkelstein +2 more

In a recent paper, Deutsch claims to derive the ‘probabilistic predictions of quantum theory’ from the ‘non–probabilistic axioms of quantum theory’ and the ‘nonprobabilistic part of classical decision theory.’ We show that his derivation includes a crucial hidden assumption that vitiates the force of his argument. Furthermore, we point out that in classical decision theory a standard set of non–probabilistic axioms is already sufficient to endow possible outcomes with a natural probability structure. Within that context we argue that Gleason's theorem, relying on fewer assumptions than Deutsch, provides a compelling derivation of the quantum probability law.

arXiv:quant-ph/9907024•Proceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•May 8, 2000•78 citations

Quantum Probability from Decision Theory?

H. Barnum, Carlton M. Caves, J. Finkelstein +2 more

In a recent paper, Deutsch claims to derive the `probabilistic predictions of quan-tum theory ’ from the `non-probabilistic axioms of quantum theory ’ and the `non-probabilistic part of classical decision theory. ’ We show that his derivation includes a crucial hidden assumption that vitiates the force of his argument. Furthermore, we point out that in classical decision theory a standard set of non-probabilistic axioms is already su ¯ cient to endow possible outcomes with a natural probability structure. Within that context we argue that Gleason’s theorem, relying on fewer assump-tions than Deutsch, provides a compelling derivation of the quantum probability law.

•Jan 1, 2000•101 citations
An extended analysis is given of the program, originally suggested by Deutsch, of solving the probability problem in the Everett interpretation by means of decision theory. Deutsch's own proof is discussed, and alternatives are presented which are based upon different decision theories and upon Gleason's Theorem. It is argued that decision theory gives Everettians most or all of what they need from `probability'. Some consequences of (Everettian) quantum mechanics for decision theory itself are also discussed.
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.
Abstract Critics object that the Everett view cannot make sense of quantum probabilities, in one or both of two ways: either it cannot make sense of probability at all, or it cannot explain why probability should be governed by the Born rule. David Deutsch has attempted to meet these objections by appealing to an Everettian version of Savage's rational decision theory. Deutsch argues not only that an analogue of classical decision under uncertainty makes sense in an Everett world; but also that under reasonable assumptions, the betting odds of a rational Everettian agent should be constrained by the Born rule. Deutsch's proposal has been defended and developed by David Wallace, and in a different form by Hilary Greaves. This chapter offers some objections to the Deutsch–Wallace–Greaves argument, focussing in particular on the supposed analogy with classical decision under uncertainty.
I consider exactly what is involved in a solution to the probability problem of the Everett interpretation, in the light of recent work on applying considerations from decision theory to that problem. I suggest an overall framework for understanding probability in a physical theory, and conclude that this framework, when applied to the Everett interpretation, yields the result that that interpretation satisfactorily solves the measurement problem. 1. Introduction 2. What is probability? 2.1Objective probability and the Principal Principle 2.2Three ways of satisfying the functional definition 2.3Cautious functionalism 2.4Is the functional definition complete? 3. The Everett interpretation and subjective uncertainty 3.1Interpreting quantum mechanics 3.2The need for subjective uncertainty 3.3Saunders' argument for subjective uncertainty 3.4Objections to Saunders' argument 3.5Subjective uncertainty again: arguments from interpretative charity 3.6Quantum weights and the functional definition of probability 4. Rejecting subjective uncertainty 4.1The fission program 4.2Against the fission program 5. Justifying the axioms of decision theory 5.1The primitive status of the decision-theoretic axioms 5.2Holistic scepticism 5.3The role of an explanation of decision theory 6. Conclusion
In a recent paper, Deutsch claims to derive the ‘probabilistic predictions of quantum theory’ from the ‘non–probabilistic axioms of quantum theory’ and the ‘nonprobabilistic part of classical decision theory.’ We show that his derivation includes a crucial hidden assumption that vitiates the force of his argument. Furthermore, we point out that in classical decision theory a standard set of non–probabilistic axioms is already sufficient to endow possible outcomes with a natural probability structure. Within that context we argue that Gleason's theorem, relying on fewer assumptions than Deutsch, provides a compelling derivation of the quantum probability law.
In a recent paper, Deutsch claims to derive the `probabilistic predictions of quan-tum theory ’ from the `non-probabilistic axioms of quantum theory ’ and the `non-probabilistic part of classical decision theory. ’ We show that his derivation includes a crucial hidden assumption that vitiates the force of his argument. Furthermore, we point out that in classical decision theory a standard set of non-probabilistic axioms is already su ¯ cient to endow possible outcomes with a natural probability structure. Within that context we argue that Gleason’s theorem, relying on fewer assump-tions than Deutsch, provides a compelling derivation of the quantum probability law.