Quantum probability from subjective likelihood: Improving on Deutsch's proof of the probability rule

I present a proof of the quantum probability rule from decision-theoretic assumptions, in the context of the Everett interpretation. The basic ideas behind the proof are those presented in Deutsch's recent proof of the probability rule, but the proof is simpler and proceeds from weaker decision-theoretic assumptions. This makes it easier to discuss the conceptual ideas involved in the proof, and to show that they are defensible.     

Decision theory and information propagation in quantum physics

In recent papers, Zurek [(2005). Probabilities from entanglement, Born's rule p_k=|ψ_k|² from entanglement. Physical Review A, 71, 052105] has objected to the decision-theoretic approach of Deutsch [(1999) Quantum theory of probability and decisions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 455, 3129–3137] and Wallace [(2003). Everettian rationality: defending Deutsch's approach to probability in the Everett interpretation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 34, 415–438] to deriving the Born rule for quantum probabilities on the grounds that it courts circularity. Deutsch and Wallace assume that the many worlds theory is true and that decoherence gives rise to a preferred basis. However, decoherence arguments use the reduced density matrix, which relies upon the partial trace and hence upon the Born rule for its validity. Using the Heisenberg picture and quantum Darwinism—the notion that classical information is quantum information that can proliferate in the environment pioneered in Ollivier et al. [(2004). Objective properties from subjective quantum states: Environment as a witness. Physical Review Letters, 93, 220401 and (2005). Environment as a witness: Selective proliferation of information and emergence of objectivity in a quantum universe. Physical Review A, 72, 042113]—I show that measurement interactions between two systems only create correlations between a specific set of commuting observables of system 1 and a specific set of commuting observables of system 2. This argument picks out a unique basis in which information flows in the correlations between those sets of commuting observables. I then derive the Born rule for both pure and mixed states and answer some other criticisms of the decision theoretic approach to quantum probability.     

In defence of the self-location uncertainty account of probability in the many-worlds interpretation

We defend the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (MWI) against the objection that it cannot explain why measurement outcomes are predicted by the Born probability rule. We understand quantum probabilities in terms of an observer's self-location probabilities. We formulate a probability postulate for the MWI: the probability of self-location in a world with a given set of outcomes is the absolute square of that world's amplitude. We provide a proof of this postulate, which assumes the quantum formalism and two principles concerning symmetry and locality. We also show how a structurally similar proof of the Born rule is available for collapse theories. We conclude by comparing our account to the recent account offered by Sebens and Carroll.     

The physics and metaphysics of Tychistic Bohmian Mechanics

The paper takes up Bell's (1987) “Everett (?) theory” and develops it further. The resulting theory is about the system of all particles in the universe, each located in ordinary, 3-dimensional space. This many-particle system as a whole performs random jumps through 3N-dimensional configuration space – hence “Tychistic Bohmian Mechanics” (TBM). The distribution of its spontaneous localisations in configuration space is given by the Born Rule probability measure for the universal wavefunction. Contra Bell, the theory is argued to satisfy the minimal desiderata for a Bohmian theory within the Primitive Ontology framework (for which we offer a metaphysically more perspicuous formulation than is customary). TBM's formalism is that of ordinary Bohmian Mechanics (BM), without the postulate of continuous particle trajectories and their deterministic dynamics. This “rump formalism” receives, however, a different interpretation. We defend TBM as an empirically adequate and coherent quantum theory. Objections voiced by Bell and Maudlin are rebutted. The “for all practical purposes”-classical, Everettian worlds (i.e. quasi-classical histories) exist sequentially in TBM (rather than simultaneously, as in the Everett interpretation). In a temporally coarse-grained sense, they quasi-persist. By contrast, the individual particles themselves cease to persist.     

The relative facts interpretation and Everett's note added in proof

In the published version of Hugh Everett III's doctoral dissertation, he inserted what has become a famous footnote, the “note added in proof”. This footnote is often the strongest evidence given for any of various interpretations of Everett (the many worlds, many minds, many histories and many threads interpretations). In this paper I will propose a new interpretation of the footnote. One that is supported by evidence found in letters written to and by Everett; one that is suggested by a new interpretation of Everett, an interpretation that takes seriously the central position of relative states in Everett's pure wave mechanics: the relative facts interpretation. Of central interest in this paper is how to make sense of Everett's claim in the “note added in proof” that “all elements of a superposition (all “branches”) are “actual,” none any more “real” than the rest.”     

Typical worlds

Hugh Everett III presented pure wave mechanics, sometimes referred to as the many-worlds interpretation, as a solution to the quantum measurement problem. While pure wave mechanics is an objectively deterministic physical theory with no probabilities, Everett sought to show how the theory might be understood as making the standard quantum statistical predictions as appearances to observers who were themselves described by the theory. We will consider his argument and how it depends on a particular notion of branch typicality. We will also consider responses to Everett and the relationship between typicality and probability. The suggestion will be that pure wave mechanics requires a number of significant auxiliary assumptions in order to make anything like the standard quantum predictions.     

The metaphysics of D-CTCs: On the underlying assumptions of Deutsch׳s quantum solution to the paradoxes of time travel

I argue that Deutsch׳s model for the behavior of systems traveling around closed timelike curves (CTCs) relies implicitly on a substantive metaphysical assumption. Deutsch is employing a version of quantum theory with a significantly supplemented ontology of parallel existent worlds, which differ in kind from the many worlds of the Everett interpretation. Standard Everett does not support the existence of multiple identical copies of the world, which the D-CTC model requires. This has been obscured because he often refers to the branching structure of Everett as a “multiverse”, and describes quantum interference by reference to parallel interacting definite worlds. But he admits that this is only an approximation to Everett. The D-CTC model, however, relies crucially on the existence of a multiverse of parallel interacting worlds. Since his model is supplemented by structures that go significantly beyond quantum theory, and play an ineliminable role in its predictions and explanations, it does not represent a quantum solution to the paradoxes of time travel.     

Against the empirical viability of the Deutsch–Wallace–Everett approach to quantum mechanics

The subjective Everettian approach to quantum mechanics presented by Deutsch and Wallace fails to constitute an empirically viable theory of quantum phenomena. The decision theoretic implementation of the Born rule realized in this approach provides no basis for rejecting Everettian quantum mechanics in the face of empirical data that contradicts the Born rule. The approach of Greaves and Myrvold, which provides a subjective implementation of the Born rule as well but derives it from empirical data rather than decision theoretic arguments, avoids the problem faced by Deutsch and Wallace and is empirically viable. However, there is good reason to cast doubts on its scientific value.     

Multiplicity in Everett׳s interpretation of quantum mechanics

Everett׳s interpretation of quantum mechanics was proposed to avoid problems inherent in the prevailing interpretational frame. It assumes that quantum mechanics can be applied to any system and that the state vector always evolves unitarily. It then claims that whenever an observable is measured, all possible results of the measurement exist. This notion of multiplicity has been understood in different ways by proponents of Everett׳s theory. In fact the spectrum of opinions on various ontological questions raised by Everett׳s approach is rather large, as we attempt to document in this critical review. We conclude that much remains to be done to clarify and specify Everett׳s approach.     

Measurement outcomes and probability in Everettian quantum mechanics

The decision-theoretic account of probability in the Everett or many-worlds interpretation, advanced by David Deutsch and David Wallace, is shown to be circular. Talk of probability in Everett presumes the existence of a preferred basis to identify measurement outcomes for the probabilities to range over. But the existence of a preferred basis can only be established by the process of decoherence, which is itself probabilistic.     

The problem of confirmation in the Everett interpretation

I argue that the Oxford school Everett interpretation is internally incoherent, because we cannot claim that in an Everettian universe the kinds of reasoning we have used to arrive at our beliefs about quantum mechanics would lead us to form true beliefs. I show that in an Everettian context, the experimental evidence that we have available could not provide empirical confirmation for quantum mechanics, and moreover that we would not even be able to establish reference to the theoretical entities of quantum mechanics. I then consider a range of existing Everettian approaches to the probability problem and show that they do not succeed in overcoming this incoherence.     

Quantum probability and many worlds

We discuss the meaning of probabilities in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. We start by presenting very briefly the many worlds theory, how the problem of probability arises, and some unsuccessful attempts to solve it in the past. Then we criticize a recent attempt by Deutsch to derive the quantum mechanical probabilities from the non-probabilistic parts of quantum mechanics and classical decision theory. We further argue that the Born probability does not make sense even as an additional probability rule in the many worlds theory. Our conclusion is that the many worlds theory fails to account for the probabilistic statements of standard (collapse) quantum mechanics.     

On the Everettian Epistemic Problem

Recent work in the Everett interpretation has suggested that the problem of probability can be solved by understanding probability in terms of rationality. However, there are two problems relating to probability in Everett—one practical, the other epistemic—and the rationality-based program directly addresses only the practical problem. One might therefore worry that the problem of probability is only ‘half solved’ by this approach. This paper aims to dispel that worry: a solution to the epistemic problem follows from the rationality-based solution to the practical problem.     

Jordan's derivation of blackbody fluctuations

The celebrated Dreimännerarbeit by Born, Heisenberg and Jordan contains a matrix-mechanical derivation by Jordan of Einstein's formula for blackbody fluctuations. Jordan appears to have considered this to be one of his finest contributions to quantum theory, but the status of his derivation is puzzling. In our Dreimenschenarbeit, we show how to understand what Jordan was doing in the double context of a Boltzmannian approach to statistical mechanics and of the early ‘statistical interpretation’ of matrix mechanics.     

Objective probability and the mind-body relation

Objectiveprobability in quantum mechanics is often thought to involve a stochastic process whereby an actual future is selected from a range of possibilities. Everett's seminal idea is that all possible definite futures on the pointer basis exist as components of a macroscopic linear superposition. I demonstrate that these two conceptions of what is involved in quantum processes are linked via two alternative interpretations of the mind-body relation. This leads to a fission, rather than divergence, interpretation of Everettian theory and to a novel explanation of why a principle of indifference does not apply to self-location uncertainty for a post-measurement, pre-observation subject, just as Sebens and Carroll claim. Their Epistemic Separability Principle is shown to arise out of this explanation and the derivation of the Born rule for Everettian theory is thereby put on a firmer footing.     

The modal-Hamiltonian interpretation and the Galilean covariance of quantum mechanics

The aim of this paper is to analyze the modal-Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics in the light of the Galilean group. In particular, it is shown that the rule of definite-value assignment proposed by that interpretation has the same properties of Galilean covariance and invariance as the Schrödinger equation. Moreover, it is argued that, when the Schrödinger equation is invariant, the rule can be reformulated in an explicitly invariant form in terms of the Casimir operators of the Galilean group. Finally, the possibility of extrapolating the rule to quantum field theory is considered.     

Worlds in the Everett interpretation

This is a discussion of how we can understand the world-view given to us by the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, and in particular the rôle played by the concept of ‘world’. The view presented is that we are entitled to use ‘many-worlds’ terminology even if the theory does not specify the worlds in the formalism; this is defended by means of an extensive analogy with the concept of an ‘instant’ or moment of time in relativity, with the lack of a preferred foliation of spacetime being compared with the lack of a preferred basis in quantum theory. Implications for identity of worlds over time, and for relativistic quantum mechanics, are discussed.     

The origin of the Everettian heresy

In 1956, Hugh Everett, then a PhD student at Princeton, proposed his “relative state” formulation of quantum mechanics. John Wheeler, who was Everett's advisor, recognized the originality and importance of such a proposal, but he denied that its non-conventional approach to measurement questioned the orthodox view. Indeed, Wheeler made serious efforts to obtain the blessing of Niels Bohr for Everett's ideas. These efforts gave rise to a lively debate with the Copenhagen group, the existence and content of which have been only recently disclosed by the discovery of unpublished documents. The analysis of such documents opens a window on the conceptual background of Everett's proposal, and illuminates at the same time some crucial aspects of the Copenhagen view of the measurement problem. Also, it provides an original insight into the interplay between philosophical and social factors which underlay the postwar controversies on the interpretation of quantum mechanics.     

A loose and separate certainty: Caves, Fuchs and Schack on quantum probability one

Carlton Caves, Fuchs, and Schack (2002) have recently appealed to an argument of mine (Stairs, 1983) to address a problem for their subjective Bayesian account of quantum probability. The difficulty is that on the face of it, quantum mechanical probabilities of one appear to be objective, but in that case, the Born Rule would yield a continuum of probabilities between zero and one. If so, we end up with objective probabilities strictly between zero and one. The authors claim that objective probabilities of one leads to a dilemma: give up locality or fall into contradiction. I argue that this conclusion depends on an overly strong interpretation of objectivism about quantum probabilities.