Quantum, Probability, Logic pp 337-351 | Cite as

# Quantum Mechanics as a Theory of Probability

- 61 Downloads

## Abstract

We examine two quite different threads in Pitowsky’s approach to the measurement problem that are sometimes associated with his writings. One thread is an attempt to understand quantum mechanics as a probability theory of physical reality. This thread appears in almost all of Pitowsky’s papers (see for example 2003, 2007). We focus here on the ideas he developed jointly with Jeffrey Bub in their paper ‘Two Dogmas About Quantum Mechanics’ (2010) (See also: Bub (1977, 2007, 2016, 2020); Pitowsky (2003, 2007)). In this paper they propose an interpretation in which the quantum probabilities are objective chances determined by the *physics of a genuinely indeterministic* universe. The other thread is sometimes associated with Pitowsky’s earlier writings on quantum mechanics as a Bayesian theory of quantum probability (Pitowsky 2003) in which the quantum state seems to be a credence function tracking the experience of agents betting on the outcomes of measurements. An extreme form of this thread is the so-called Bayesian approach to quantum mechanics. We argue that in both threads the measurement problem is solved by implicitly adding structure to Hilbert space. In the Bub-Pitowsky approach we show that the claim that decoherence gives rise to an effective Boolean probability space requires adding structure to Hilbert space. With respect to the Bayesian approach to quantum mechanics, we show that it too requires adding structure to Hilbert space, and (moreover) it leads to an extreme form of idealism.

## Keywords

Bub-Pitowsky’s approach Bayesian approach measurement problem preferred basis problem## Notes

### Acknowledgement

We thank Guy Hetzroni and Cristoph Lehner for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (ISF), grant number 1114/18.

## References

- Bell, J. S. (1987a). Are there quantum jumps? In J. Bell (Ed.),
*Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics*(pp. 201–212). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Bell, J. S. (1987b). How to teach special relativity. In J. Bell (Ed.),
*Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics*(pp. 67–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Brown, H. (2005).
*Physical relativity: Spacetime structure from a dynamical perspective*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Brown, H. R., & Timpson, C. G. (2007). Why special relativity should not be a template for a fundamental reformulation of quantum mechanics. In Pitowsky (Ed.),
*Physical theory and its interpretation: Essays in honor of Jeffrey Bub, W. Demopoulos and I*. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar - Bub, J. (1977). Von Neumann’s projection postulate as a probability conditionalization rule in quantum mechanics.
*Journal of Philosophical Logic, 6*, 381–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bub, J. (2007). Quantum probabilities as degrees of belief.
*Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38*, 232–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bub, J. (2016).
*Bananaworld: Quantum mechanics for primates*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bub, J. (2020). ‘Two Dogmas’ Redux. In Hemmo, M., Shenker, O. (eds.)
*Quantum, probability, logic: Itamar Pitowsky’s work and influence*. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar - Bub, J., & Pitowsky, I. (2010). Two dogmas about quantum mechanics. In S. Saunders, J. Barrett, A. Kent, & D. Wallace (Eds.),
*Many worlds? Everett, quantum theory, and reality*(pp. 431–456). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar - Bohm, D. (1952). A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of “hidden” variables.
*Physical Review, 85*(166–179), 180–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Caves, C. M., Fuchs, C. A., & Schack, R. (2002a). Unknown quantum states: The quantum de Finetti representation.
*Journal of Mathematical Physics, 43*(9), 4537–4559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Caves, C. M., Fuchs, C. A., & Schack, R. (2002b). Quantum probabilities as Bayesian probabilities.
*Physical Review A, 65*, 022305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Caves, C. M., Fuchs, C. A., & Schack, R. (2007). Subjective probability and quantum certainty.
*Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38*, 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - de Finetti, B. (1970).
*Theory of probability*. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar - Everett, H. (1957). ‘Relative state’ formulation of quantum mechanics.
*Reviews of Modern Physics, 29*, 454–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Fuchs C. A. & Schack, R. (2012). Bayesian conditioning, the reflection principle, and quantum decoherence. In Ben-Menahem, Y., & Hemmo, M. (eds.),
*Probability in physics*(pp. 233–247). The Frontiers Collection. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar - Fuchs, C. A., & Schack, R. (2013). Quantum Bayesian coherence.
*Reviews of Modern Physics, 85*, 1693–1715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Fuchs, C. A., Mermin, N. D., & Schack, R. (2014). An introduction to QBism with an application to the locality of quantum mechanics.
*American Journal of Physics, 82*, 749–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Fuchs, C. A., & Stacey, B. (2019). QBism: Quantum theory as a hero’s handbook. In E. M. Rasel, W. P. Schleich, & S. Wölk (Eds.),
*Foundations of quantum theory: Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” course 197*(pp. 133–202). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar - Ghirardi, G., Rimini, A., & Weber, T. (1986). Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems.
*Physical Review, D, 34*, 470–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hagar, A. (2003). A philosopher looks at quantum information theory.
*Philosophy of Science, 70*(4), 752–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hagar, A., & Hemmo, M. (2006). Explaining the unobserved – Why quantum mechanics ain’t only about information.
*Foundations of Physics, 36*(9), 1295–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hemmo, M., & Shenker, O. (2012).
*The road to Maxwell’s demon*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hemmo, M., & Shenker, O. (2016).
*Maxwell’s demon*. Oxford University Press: Oxford Handbooks Online.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hemmo, M. & Shenker, O. (2019).
*Why quantum mechanics is not enough to set the framework for its interpretation*, forthcoming.Google Scholar - Joos, E., Zeh, H. D., Giulini, D., Kiefer, C., Kupsch, J., & Stamatescu, I. O. (2003).
*Decoherence and the appearance of a classical world in quantum theory*. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Pitowsky, I. (2003). Betting on the outcomes of measurements: A Bayesian theory of quantum probability.
*Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 34*, 395–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Kolmogorov, A. N. (1933).
*Foundations of the Theory of Probability*. New York: Chelsea Publishing Company, English translation 1956.Google Scholar - Pitowsky, I. (2007). Quantum mechanics as a theory of probability. In W. Demopoulos & I. Pitowsky (Eds.),
*Physical theory and its interpretation: Essays in honor of Jeffrey Bub*(pp. 213–240). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar - Ramsey, F. P. (1990).
*Truth and Probability*. (1926); reprinted in Mellor, D.H. (ed.), F. P. Ramsey: Philosophical Papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Tumulka, R. (2006). A relativistic version of the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber model.
*Journal of Statistical Physics, 125*, 821–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - von Neumann, J. (2001). Unsolved problems in mathematics. In M. Redei & M. Stoltzner (Eds.),
*John von Neumann and the foundations of quantum physics*(pp. 231–245). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar