Proponents of the Everett interpretation of Quantum Theory have made efforts to show that to an observer in a branch, everything happens as if the projection postulate were true without postulating it. In this paper, we will indicate that it is only possible to deduce this rule if one introduces another postulate that is logically equivalent to introducing the projection postulate as an extra assumption. We do this by examining the consequences of changing the projection postulate into an alternative one, while keeping the unitary part of quantum theory, and indicate that this is a consistent (although strange) physical theory.
Proponents of the Everett interpretation of Quantum Theory have made efforts to show that to an observer in a branch, everything happens as if the projection postulate were true without postulating it. In this paper, we will indicate that it is only possible to deduce this rule if one introduces another postulate that is logically equivalent to introducing the projection postulate as an extra assumption. We do this by examining the consequences of changing the projection postulate into an alternative one, while keeping the unitary part of quantum theory, and indicate that this is a consistent (although strange) physical theory.
The Born rule governs the probability of outcomes of measurements of quantum systems. Many attempts have been made to derive the Born rule from other postulates. We perform such an analysis in an Everett interpretation without any measurement postulates at all. We explain that probability is an ill defined concept and that an agent who nevertheless wishes to make approximate predictions will have no alternative measure to weigh the alternatives without subjecting herself to a dutch book. Our demonstration is complete for projective measurements of pure states in a finite dimensional Hilbert space and we discuss how it might be applied to generalized measurements. A similar demonstration is impossible for mixed states. Nevertheless, following the standard convention, probability for mixed states has the same validity and issues as it does in classical physics.
During the last ten years or so, derivations of the Born rule based on decision theory have been proposed and developed, and it is claimed that these are valid in the context of the Everett interpretation. This claim is critically assessed and it is shown that one of its key assumptions, although natural in the context of the Copenhagen interpretation, is not consistent with that of Everett. It is further argued that any interpretation that relates outcome likelihood to the expansion coefficients connecting the wavefunction with the eigenfunctions of the measurement operator must be inconsistent with the Everett interpretation.
As we saw in the previous chapter, the Everett interpretation seems to dispense with probabilities in quantum mechanics. Instead of describing a world for which many things are possible, but only some of those possibilities are actualised, it suggests a world in which all possibilities actually happen . Moreover, this is something of which we can be absolutely certain . Obviously, this does not straightforwardly fit our experience. We do not see multiple possibilities becoming actual. Whenever we measure a superposed particle, we observe only one property or another. Moreover, we have a very useful probabilistic rule to help us to predict what we will see. How can the success of this probabilistic rule be explained, if an Everett world does not involve any uncertainty? There are two main moves that are employed in response to this challenge. The first – what I call Stage A – is to show that there is a relevant sort of uncertainty, even in a universe where we are certain that everything will happen. The second move – Stage B – is to try to vindicate the probability of the Born rule in particular. That is, to show that we should not merely be uncertain about the future, but that we have good reason to attach the particular probabilities dictated by the Born rule to the possible outcomes of a quantum experiment. We will consider these two stages in turn.
One of the primary conceptual difficulties facing the multiple worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics is the interpretation of the Born rule measure as a probability. Given that each world in the MWI is typically envisioned as being equally “real,” a more natural rule would be to assign each of the N branches associated with a measurement the equivalent probability 1/N, rather than the probability |a|^2 prescribed by the Born rule. This approach, the “alternate projection postulate” (APP), has been paid scant attention, however, since it leads to predictions that contradict those of standard quantum mechanics. In this paper, a further modification of the MWI is presented that not only incorporates the aesthetic advantages of the APP, but also is compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. This further modification involves an alternative method of enumerating branches that satisfies what is termed here the “Born identity,” according to which there is not a single branch associated with a given experimental outcome, but rather more than one branch, with each branch being physically distinct and the number of branches being proportional to |a|2. In place of the assumption of the Born identity, however, a feasibility argument for the derivation of the Born identity from more fundamental field-theoretic principles (such as those provided by general relativity) is sought. In this manner, it is proposed that quantum statistics may be derived from a purely classical (general relativistic) foundation without injecting the Born rule – either directly or in disguised form – as an independent postulate.
Understanding the core content of quantum mechanics requires us to disentangle the hidden logical relationships between the postulates of this theory. Here we show that the mathematical structure of quantum measurements, the formula for assigning outcome probabilities (Born's rule) and the post-measurement state-update rule, can be deduced from the other quantum postulates, often referred to as unitary quantum and the assumption that ensembles on finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces are characterised by finitely many parameters. This is achieved by taking an operational approach to physical theories, and using the fact that the manner in which a physical system is partitioned into subsystems is a subjective choice of the observer, and hence should not affect the predictions of the theory. In contrast to other approaches, our result does not assume that measurements are related to operators or bases, it does not rely on the universality of quantum mechanics, and it is independent of the interpretation of probability.
The Born rule stands as the fundamental probability postulate of quantum mechanics, yet its first-principle derivation remains a longstanding open problem. This paper presents a rigorous, collapse-free, and observer-independent derivation of the Born rule. Starting from four physically natural and minimal axioms—unitary dynamics, uniqueness of classical records, unitary invariance, and consistency with the classical limit and ergodicity—we uniquely deduce the Born rule from first principles. We prove that the Born rule is not an independent postulate, but a necessary mathematical consequence of the core axiomatic structure. Our approach is self-contained, assumption-free, and purely unitary, establishing that the Born rule is canonically determined by the fundamental mathematical and physical principles of quantum mechanics.