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/0307188 · Quantum Probability and Infinite Dimensional Analysis

ON AN ARGUMENT OF DAVID DEUTSCH

Richard David Gill

Published Jan 1, 2005• 13 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We analyse an argument of Deutsch, which purports to show that the deterministic part of classical quantum theory together with deterministic axioms of classical decision theory, together imply that a rational decision maker behaves as if the probabilistic part of quantum theory (Born's law) is true. We uncover two missing assumptions in the argument, and show that the argument also works for an instrumentalist who is prepared to accept that the outcome of a quantum measurement is random in the frequentist sense: Born's law is a consequence of functional and unitary invariance principles belonging to the deterministic part of quantum mechanics. Unfortunately, it turns out that after the necessary corrections we have done no more than give an easier proof of Gleason's theorem under stronger assumptions. However, for some special cases the proof method gives positive results while using different assumptions to Gleason. This leads to the conjecture that the proof could be improved to give the same conclusion as Gleason under unitary invariance together with a much weaker functional invariance condition.

DOI
10.1142/9789812702104_0019

Related papers

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

Deutsch on quantum decision theory

Peter J. Lewis

A major problem facing no-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics in the tradition of Everett is how to understand the probabilistic axiom of quantum mechanics (the Born rule) in the context of a deterministic theory in which every outcome of a measurement occurs. Deutsch claims to derive a decision-theoretic analogue of the Born rule from the non-probabilistic part of quantum mechanics and some non-probabilistic axioms of classical decision theory, and hence concludes that no probabilistic axiom is needed. I argue that Deutsch’s derivation begs the question.

•Jan 1, 2003•5 citations

A Note on Deutsch’s “Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions”

Malcolm R. Forster

ABSTRACT: David Deutsch has a forthcoming article called “Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions " in which he claims to derive the standard probabilistic interpretation of the wavefunction from non-probabilistic considerations. In this note, I try to develop his argument in a classical context, to see whether the same ideas can generate probabilistic conclusions from nonprobabilistic assumptions in a more general way. While my answer is negative, the attempt pinpoints the parts of Deutsch’s quantum mechanical argument that must rely on special features of the formalism (assuming that his proof is correct). 1. No Probabilities In, No Probabilities Out? You cannot derive an ‘ought ’ from an ‘is’. And I believe that it was Popper (1959) who once said, in response to those who think that randomness can be defined nonprobabilistically, that one cannot derive a probabilistic conclusion from non-probabilistic premises. Yet this is exactly what Deutsch (to appear) claims for quantum mechanical probabilities. Historically in the development of quantum theory, the Schrödinger

•Jan 1, 1999•0 citations

Reducing the Statistical Axiom

L. Polley

In a recent article (quant-ph/9906015) Deutsch, using concepts of decision theory, provided a strikingly simple argument to explain why quantum-mechanical probabilities are squares of amplitudes. The decisiontheoretic reasoning was criticized by Barnum et al. (quant-ph/9907024). Taking a more conventional approach, we reinterpret a crucial substitution in Deutsch’s paper as the time evolution of an apparatus, capable of separating internal states of an “atom ” into a suitable number of “cavities”. Permutational symmetries play a central role in this analysis. PACS numbers: 03.65.BzIn a recent paper, Deutsch [1] invoked the non-probabilistic part of classical decision theory to deduce from only non-probabilistic axioms of quantum mechanics the Statistical Axiom: The probability for measuring xi in a superposition state |ψ 〉 = ∑ i ψi|xi 〉 is |ψi | 2. The paper has attracted some vehement criticism [2] relating to its decision-theoretic setting, but also to priorities. As pointed out by Ref. [2], in 1957 already Gleason [3] gave a mathematically rigorous proof for the redundance of the Statistical Axiom, showing that if normalized probabilities are to be assigned to the eigenvectors of each bounded hermitian operator, then the only solution is the usual quantum mechanical prescription. Unfortunately for a result of such fundamental importance to quantum physics, the existing proofs of Gleason’s theorem are not easily received by many physicists, although mathematically elementary [4], synoptical [5], and even textbook [6] elaborations have been presented. Ref. [1] has a strong point in this respect, suggesting that the mathematics behind amplitudes being square-roots of probabilities essentially is the Pythagorean theorem in Hilbert space. Consider a superposition state of the special form |ψ 〉 =

•Jun 29, 1999•2 citations

Probability in the Everett World: Comments on Wallace and Greaves

Huw Price

It is often objected that the Everett interpretation of QM cannot make sense of quantum probabilities, in one or both of two ways: either it can't make sense of probability at all, or it can't explain why probability should be governed by the Born rule. David Deutsch has attempted to meet these objections. He argues not only that rational decision under uncertainty makes sense in the Everett interpretation, but also that under reasonable assumptions, the credences of a rational agent in an Everett world should be constrained by the Born rule. David Wallace has developed and defended Deutsch's proposal, and greatly clarified its conceptual basis. In particular, he has stressed its reliance on the distinguishing symmetry of the Everett view, viz., that all possible outcomes of a quantum measurement are treated as equally real. The argument thus tries to make a virtue of what has usually been seen as the main obstacle to making sense of probability in the Everett world. In this note I outline some objections to the Deutsch-Wallace argument, and to related proposals by Hilary Greaves about the epistemology of Everettian QM. (In the latter case, my arguments include an appeal to an Everettian analogue of the Sleeping Beauty problem.) The common thread to these objections is that the symmetry in question remains a very significant obstacle to making sense of probability in the Everett interpretation.

arXiv:quant-ph/0604191•Apr 26, 2006•93 citations
We analyse an argument of Deutsch, which purports to show that the deterministic part of classical quantum theory together with deterministic axioms of classical decision theory, together imply that a rational decision maker behaves as if the probabilistic part of quantum theory (Born's law) is true. We uncover two missing assumptions in the argument, and show that the argument also works for an instrumentalist who is prepared to accept that the outcome of a quantum measurement is random in the frequentist sense: Born's law is a consequence of functional and unitary invariance principles belonging to the deterministic part of quantum mechanics. Unfortunately, it turns out that after the necessary corrections we have done no more than give an easier proof of Gleason's theorem under stronger assumptions. However, for some special cases the proof method gives positive results while using different assumptions to Gleason. This leads to the conjecture that the proof could be improved to give the same conclusion as Gleason under unitary invariance together with a much weaker functional invariance condition.
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.
A major problem facing no-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics in the tradition of Everett is how to understand the probabilistic axiom of quantum mechanics (the Born rule) in the context of a deterministic theory in which every outcome of a measurement occurs. Deutsch claims to derive a decision-theoretic analogue of the Born rule from the non-probabilistic part of quantum mechanics and some non-probabilistic axioms of classical decision theory, and hence concludes that no probabilistic axiom is needed. I argue that Deutsch’s derivation begs the question.
ABSTRACT: David Deutsch has a forthcoming article called “Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions " in which he claims to derive the standard probabilistic interpretation of the wavefunction from non-probabilistic considerations. In this note, I try to develop his argument in a classical context, to see whether the same ideas can generate probabilistic conclusions from nonprobabilistic assumptions in a more general way. While my answer is negative, the attempt pinpoints the parts of Deutsch’s quantum mechanical argument that must rely on special features of the formalism (assuming that his proof is correct). 1. No Probabilities In, No Probabilities Out? You cannot derive an ‘ought ’ from an ‘is’. And I believe that it was Popper (1959) who once said, in response to those who think that randomness can be defined nonprobabilistically, that one cannot derive a probabilistic conclusion from non-probabilistic premises. Yet this is exactly what Deutsch (to appear) claims for quantum mechanical probabilities. Historically in the development of quantum theory, the Schrödinger
In a recent article (quant-ph/9906015) Deutsch, using concepts of decision theory, provided a strikingly simple argument to explain why quantum-mechanical probabilities are squares of amplitudes. The decisiontheoretic reasoning was criticized by Barnum et al. (quant-ph/9907024). Taking a more conventional approach, we reinterpret a crucial substitution in Deutsch’s paper as the time evolution of an apparatus, capable of separating internal states of an “atom ” into a suitable number of “cavities”. Permutational symmetries play a central role in this analysis. PACS numbers: 03.65.BzIn a recent paper, Deutsch [1] invoked the non-probabilistic part of classical decision theory to deduce from only non-probabilistic axioms of quantum mechanics the Statistical Axiom: The probability for measuring xi in a superposition state |ψ 〉 = ∑ i ψi|xi 〉 is |ψi | 2. The paper has attracted some vehement criticism [2] relating to its decision-theoretic setting, but also to priorities. As pointed out by Ref. [2], in 1957 already Gleason [3] gave a mathematically rigorous proof for the redundance of the Statistical Axiom, showing that if normalized probabilities are to be assigned to the eigenvectors of each bounded hermitian operator, then the only solution is the usual quantum mechanical prescription. Unfortunately for a result of such fundamental importance to quantum physics, the existing proofs of Gleason’s theorem are not easily received by many physicists, although mathematically elementary [4], synoptical [5], and even textbook [6] elaborations have been presented. Ref. [1] has a strong point in this respect, suggesting that the mathematics behind amplitudes being square-roots of probabilities essentially is the Pythagorean theorem in Hilbert space. Consider a superposition state of the special form |ψ 〉 =
It is often objected that the Everett interpretation of QM cannot make sense of quantum probabilities, in one or both of two ways: either it can't make sense of probability at all, or it can't explain why probability should be governed by the Born rule. David Deutsch has attempted to meet these objections. He argues not only that rational decision under uncertainty makes sense in the Everett interpretation, but also that under reasonable assumptions, the credences of a rational agent in an Everett world should be constrained by the Born rule. David Wallace has developed and defended Deutsch's proposal, and greatly clarified its conceptual basis. In particular, he has stressed its reliance on the distinguishing symmetry of the Everett view, viz., that all possible outcomes of a quantum measurement are treated as equally real. The argument thus tries to make a virtue of what has usually been seen as the main obstacle to making sense of probability in the Everett world. In this note I outline some objections to the Deutsch-Wallace argument, and to related proposals by Hilary Greaves about the epistemology of Everettian QM. (In the latter case, my arguments include an appeal to an Everettian analogue of the Sleeping Beauty problem.) The common thread to these objections is that the symmetry in question remains a very significant obstacle to making sense of probability in the Everett interpretation.