Zurek claims to have derived Born's rule noncircularly in the context of an ontological no-collapse interpretation of quantum states, without any "deus ex machina imposition of the symptoms of classicality". After a brief review of Zurek's derivation it is argued that this claim is exaggerated if not wholly unjustified. In order to demonstrate that Born's rule arises noncircularly from deterministically evolving quantum states, it is not sufficient to assume that quantum states are somehow associated with probabilities and then prove that these probabilities are given by Born's rule. One has to show how irreducible probabilities can arise in the context of an ontological no-collapse interpretation of quantum states. It is argued that the reason why all attempts to do this have so far failed is that quantum states are fundamentally algorithms for computing correlations between possible measurement outcomes, rather than evolving ontological states.
Zurek claims to have derived Born's rule noncircularly in the context of an ontological no-collapse interpretation of quantum states, without any "deus ex machina imposition of the symptoms of classicality". After a brief review of Zurek's derivation it is argued that this claim is exaggerated if not wholly unjustified. In order to demonstrate that Born's rule arises noncircularly from deterministically evolving quantum states, it is not sufficient to assume that quantum states are somehow associated with probabilities and then prove that these probabilities are given by Born's rule. One has to show how irreducible probabilities can arise in the context of an ontological no-collapse interpretation of quantum states. It is argued that the reason why all attempts to do this have so far failed is that quantum states are fundamentally algorithms for computing correlations between possible measurement outcomes, rather than evolving ontological states.
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.
The Everett (or relative-state, or many-worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics has come under fire for inadequately dealing with the Born rule (the formula for calculating quantum probabilities). Numerous attempts have been made to derive this rule from the perspective of observers within the quantum wavefunction. These are not really analytic proofs, but are rather attempts to derive the Born rule as a synthetic a priori necessity, given the nature of human observers (a fact not fully appreciated even by all of those who have attempted such proofs). I show why existing attempts are unsuccessful or only partly successful, and postulate that Solomonoff's algorithmic approach to the interpretation of probability theory could clarify the problems with these approaches. The Sleeping Beauty probability puzzle is used as a springboard from which to deduce an objectivist, yet synthetic a priori framework for quantum probabilities, that properly frames the role of self-location and self-selection (anthropic) principles in probability theory. I call this framework "algorithmic synthetic unity" (or ASU). I offer no new formal proof of the Born rule, largely because I feel that existing proofs (particularly that of Gleason) are already adequate, and as close to being a formal proof as one should expect or want. Gleason's one unjustified assumption--known as noncontextuality--is, I will argue, completely benign when considered within the algorithmic framework that I propose. I will also argue that, to the extent the Born rule can be derived within ASU, there is no reason to suppose that we could not also derive all the other fundamental postulates of quantum theory, as well. There is nothing special here about the Born rule, and I suggest that a completely successful Born rule proof might only be possible once all the other postulates become part of the derivation. As a start towards this end, I show how we can already derive the essential content of the fundamental postulates of quantum mechanics, at least in outline, and especially if we allow some educated and well-motivated guesswork along the way. The result is some steps towards a coherent and consistent algorithmic interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Zurek has derived the quantum probabilities for Schmidt basis states of bipartite quantum systems in pure joint states, from the assumption that they should be not be affected by one party's action if the action can be undone by the other party (``envariance of probability'') and an auxiliary assumption. We argue that a natural generalization of the auxiliary assumption is actually strong enough to yield the Born rule itself, but that Zurek's argument and protocol can be adapted to do without this assumption, at the cost of using envariance of probability in both directions. We consider alternative motivations for envariance, one based on the no-signalling constraint that actions on one subsystem of a quantum system not allow signalling to another subsystem entirely distinct from the first, and another which is perhaps strongest in the context of a relative-state interpretation of quantum mechanics. In part because of this, we argue that the relative appeal of our version and the original version of Zurek's argument depends in part upon whether one interprets the quantum formalism in terms of relative states or definite measurement outcomes.
We clarify the role of the Born rule in the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics by deriving it from Bohr's doctrine of classical concepts, translated into the following mathematical statement: a quantum system described by a noncommutative C*-algebra of observables is empirically accessible only through associated commutative C*-algebras. The Born probabilities emerge as the relative frequencies of outcomes in long runs of measurements on a quantum system; it is not necessary to adopt the frequency interpretation of single-case probabilities (which will be the subject of a sequel paper). Our derivation of the Born rule uses ideas from a program begun by Finkelstein (1965) and Hartle (1968), intending to remove the Born rule as a separate postulate of quantum mechanics. Mathematically speaking, our approach refines previous elaborations of this program - notably the one due to Farhi, Goldstone, and Gutmann (1989) as completed by Van Wesep (2006) - in replacing infinite tensor products of Hilbert spaces by continuous fields of C*-algebras. In combination with our interpretational context, this technical improvement circumvents valid criticisms that earlier derivations of the Born rule have provoked, especially to the effect that such derivations were mathematically flawed as well as circular. Furthermore, instead of relying on the controversial eigenvector-eigenvalue link in quantum theory, our derivation just assumes that pure states in classical physics have the usual interpretation as truthmakers that assign sharp values to observables.
Zurek's derivation of Born's rule using envariance (invariance due to entanglement) is considered to capture the probability in full generality, but only as applied to measurement of a quantum observable. Contrariwise, textbook formulations of Born's rule begin with a pure state of a closed, undivided system. The task of this study is to show that a rearrangement of the Zurek approach is possible in which the latter is viewed as giving the probabilities for Schmidt states of an arbitrary composite state vector, and afterwards it is extended to probabilities in a closed, undivided system. This is achieved by determining simultaneously probability and measurement based on the fact that the physical meaning of probability and that of measurement are inextricably dependent on each other.
The Born-rule, which assigns probabilities to measurement outcomes, is one of the fundamental axioms of quantum physics. It dates back to the time of the establishment of the formalism of quantum physics in the first half of the 20th century. From the beginning, and particularly in connection with the development of different interpretations of the theory, there has been a desire/need to better understand the true nature of the Born-probabilities. Are they classical/epistemic of origin or are they irreducible and of on tic stature as a kind of intrinsic propensities of physical systems? We show that, by only using the mathematical formalism of the original theory, we find a possible answer.