The story of quantum probability theory and quantum logic begins with von Neumann’s recognition1, that quantum mechanics can be regarded as a kind of “probability theory”, if the subspace lattice L of the system’s Hilbert space H plays the role of event algebra and the ‘tr’-s play the role of probability distributions over these events. This idea had been completed in the Gleason theorem 2.

Quantum probability theory (QP) is the best formal representation available of the most common form of judgment involving attribute comparison (inside judgment). People are capable, however, of judgments that involve proportions over sets of instances (outside judgment). Here, the theory does not do so well. I discuss the theory both in terms of descriptive adequacy and normative appropriateness.

Typically, human decision making is emotionally and does not conform to classical probability (CP) theory. As quantum probability (QP) theory emphasises order, context, superimposition states, and nonlinear dynamic effects, one of its major strengths may be its power to unify formal modeling and realistic psychological theory (e.g., information uncertainty, anxiety, and indecision, as seen in the Prisoner's Dilemma).

It is shown that the Kolmogorovian Censorship Hypothesis, according to which quantum probabilities are interpretable as conditional probabilities in a classical probability measure space, holds not only for Hilbert space quantum mechanics but for general quantum probability theories based on the theory of von Neumann algebras.

An extended analysis is given of the program, originally suggested by Deutsch, of solving the probability problem in the Everett interpretation by means of decision theory. Deutsch's own proof is discussed, and alternatives are presented which are based upon different decision theories and upon Gleason's Theorem. It is argued that decision theory gives Everettians most or all of what they need from `probability'. Contact is made with Lewis's Principal Principle linking subjective credence with objective chance: an (...) Everettian Principal Principle is formulated, and shown to be at least as defensible as the usual Principle. Some consequences of (Everettian) quantum mechanics for decision theory itself are also discussed. -/- [NB: this this long (70 pages) and occasionally rambling online-only paper has been almost entirely superseded by material in subsequent; if something is not included in them it usually means that I have had second thoughts. I include it for completeness only. (shrink)

We prove new results on common cause closedness of quantum probability spaces, where by a quantum probability space is meant the projection lattice of a non-commutative von Neumann algebra together with a countably additive probability measure on the lattice. Common cause closedness is the feature that for every correlation between a pair of commuting projections there exists in the lattice a third projection commuting with both of the correlated projections and which is a Reichenbachian common (...) cause of the correlation. The main result we prove is that a quantum probability space is common cause closed if and only if it has at most one measure theoretic atom. This result improves earlier ones published in [1]. The result is discussed from the perspective of status of the Common Cause Principle. Open problems on common cause closedness of general probability spaces (L, ϕ) are formulated, where L is an orthomodular bounded lattice and ϕ is a probability measure on L. (shrink)

David Lewis' "Principal Principle" is a purported principle of rationality connecting credence and objective chance. Almost all of the discussion of the Principal Principle in the philosophical literature assumes classical probability theory, which is unfortunate since the theory of modern physics that, arguably, speaks most clearly of objective chance is the quantum theory, and quantum probabilities are not classical probabilities. Given the generally accepted updating rule for quantum probabilities, there is a straight forward (...) sense in which the Principal Principle is a theorem of quantum probability theory for any credence function satisfying a suitable additivity requirement. No additional principle of rationality is needed to bring credence into line with objective chance. (shrink)

Order of information plays a crucial role in the process of updating beliefs across time. In fact, the presence of order effects makes a classical or Bayesian approach to inference difficult. As a result, the existing models of inference, such as the belief-adjustment model, merely provide an ad hoc explanation for these effects. We postulate a quantum inference model for order effects based on the axiomatic principles of quantum probability theory. The quantum inference model explains (...) order effects by transforming a state vector with different sequences of operators for different orderings of information. We demonstrate this process by fitting the quantum model to data collected in a medical diagnostic task and a jury decision-making task. To further test the quantum inference model, a new jury decision-making experiment is developed. Using the results of this experiment, we compare the quantum inference model with two versions of the belief-adjustment model, the adding model and the averaging model. We show that both the quantum model and the adding model provide good fits to the data. To distinguish the quantum model from the adding model, we develop a new experiment involving extreme evidence. The results from this new experiment suggest that the adding model faces limitations when accounting for tasks involving extreme evidence, whereas the quantum inference model does not. Ultimately, we argue that the quantum model provides a more coherent account for order effects that was not possible before. (shrink)

The point of view advocated, in the last ten years, by quantum probability about the foundations of quantum mechanics, is based on the investigation of the mathematical consequences of a deep and elementary idea developed by the founding fathers of quantum mechanics and accepted nowadays as a truism by most physicists, namely: one should be careful when applying the rules derived from the experience of macroscopic physics to experiments which are mutually incompatible in the sense of (...) quantum mechanics. (shrink)

We consider probability theories in general. In the first part of the paper, various constraints are imposed and classical probability and quantum theory are recovered as special cases. Quantum theory follows from a set of five reasonable axioms. The key axiom which gives us quantum theory rather than classical probability theory is the continuity axiom, which demands that there exists a continuous reversible transformation between any pair of pure states. In (...) the second part of this paper, we consider in detail how the measurement process works in both the classical and the quantum case. The key differences and similarities are elucidated. It is shown how measurement in the classical case can be given a simple ontological interpretation which is not open to us in the quantum case. On the other hand, it is shown that the measurement process can be treated mathematically in the same way in both theories even to the extent that the equations governing the state update after measurement are identical. The difference between the two cases is seen to be due not to something intrinsic to the measurement process itself but, rather, to the nature of the set of allowed states and, therefore, ultimately to the continuity axiom. (shrink)

Classical (Bayesian) probability (CP) theory has led to an influential research tradition for modeling cognitive processes. Cognitive scientists have been trained to work with CP principles for so long that it is hard even to imagine alternative ways to formalize probabilities. However, in physics, quantum probability (QP) theory has been the dominant probabilistic approach for nearly 100 years. Could QP theory provide us with any advantages in cognitive modeling as well? Note first that both (...) CP and QP theory share the fundamental assumption that it is possible to model cognition on the basis of formal, probabilistic principles. But why consider a QP approach? The answers are that (1) there are many well-established empirical findings (e.g., from the influential Tversky, Kahneman research tradition) that are hard to reconcile with CP principles; and (2) these same findings have natural and straightforward explanations with quantum principles. In QP theory, probabilistic assessment is often strongly context- and order-dependent, individual states can be superposition states (that are impossible to associate with specific values), and composite systems can be entangled (they cannot be decomposed into their subsystems). All these characteristics appear perplexing from a classical perspective. However, our thesis is that they provide a more accurate and powerful account of certain cognitive processes. We first introduce QP theory and illustrate its application with psychological examples. We then review empirical findings that motivate the use of quantum theory in cognitive theory, but also discuss ways in which QP and CP theories converge. Finally, we consider the implications of a QP theory approach to cognition for human rationality. (shrink)

Quantum probability (QP) theory can be seen as a type of vector symbolic architecture (VSA): mental states are vectors storing structured information and manipulated using algebraic operations. Furthermore, the operations needed by QP match those in other VSAs. This allows existing biologically realistic neural models to be adapted to provide a mechanistic explanation of the cognitive phenomena described in the target article by Pothos & Busemeyer (P&B).

A lot of research in cognition and decision making suffers from a lack of formalism. The quantum probability program could help to improve this situation, but we wonder whether it would provide even more added value if its presumed focus on outcome models were complemented by process models that are, ideally, informed by ecological analyses and integrated into cognitive architectures.

This book compares various approaches to the interpretation of quantum mechanics, in particular those which are related to the key words "the Copenhagen interpretation", "the antirealist view", "quantum logic" and "hidden variable theory". Using the concept of "correlation" carefully analyzed in the context of classical probability and in quantum theory, the author provides a framework to compare these approaches. He also develops an extension of probability theory to construct a local hidden variable (...) theory. The book should be of interest for physicists and philosophers of science interested in the foundations of quantum theory. (shrink)

Philosophical accounts of quantum theory commonly suppose that the observables of a quantum system form a Type-I factor von Neumann algebra. Such algebras always have atoms, which are minimal projection operators in the case of quantum mechanics. However, relativistic quantum field theory and the thermodynamic limit of quantum statistical mechanics make extensive use of von Neumann algebras of more general types. This chapter addresses the question whether interpretations of quantum probability devised (...) in the usual manner continue to apply in the more general setting. Features of non-type I factor von Neumann algebras are cataloged. It is shown that these novel features do not cause the familiar formalism of quantum probability to falter, since Gleason's Theorem and the Lüders Rule can be generalized. However, the features render the problem of the interpretation of quantum probability more intricate. (shrink)

This paper shows how the classical finite probability theory (with equiprobable outcomes) can be reinterpreted and recast as the quantum probability calculus of a pedagogical or "toy" model of quantum mechanics over sets (QM/sets). There are two parts. The notion of an "event" is reinterpreted from being an epistemological state of indefiniteness to being an objective state of indefiniteness. And the mathematical framework of finite probability theory is recast as the quantum (...) class='Hi'>probability calculus for QM/sets. The point is not to clarify finite probability theory but to elucidate quantum mechanics itself by seeing some of its quantum features in a classical setting. (shrink)

We discuss a generalization of the standard notion of probability space and show that the emerging framework, to be called operational probability theory, can be considered as underlying quantal theories. The proposed framework makes special reference to the convex structure of states and to a family of observables which is wider than the familiar set of random variables: it appears as an alternative to the known algebraic approach to quantum probability.

In previous work, a non-standard theory of probability was formulated and used to systematize interference effects involving the simplest type of quantum systems. The main result here is a self-contained, non-trivial generalization of that theory to capture interference effects involving a much broader range of quantum systems. The discussion also focuses on interpretive matters having to do with the actual/virtual distinction, non-locality, and conditional probabilities.

Quantum probability theory offers a viable alternative to classical probability, although there are some ambiguities inherent in transferring the quantum formalism to a less determined realm. A number of physicists are now looking at the applicability of quantum ideas to the assessment of physics learning, an area particularly suited to quantum probability ideas.

It has been suggested (cf. Sinha et al. in Science 329:418, 2010) that the Born rule for quantum probability could be violated. It has also been suggested that, in a generalized version of quantum mechanical probability theory such as that proposed by Sorkin (Mod. Phys. Lett. A 9:3119, 1994) there might occur deviations from the predictions of quantum probability in cases where more than two paths are available to a self-interfering system. These would (...) lead to additional contributions to interference. Here, these ideas, some in the theoretical context and some in the experimental context, are briefly reviewed and pragmatically extended to situations involving bipartite systems, so that corresponding interference enhancement due to entanglement might be witnessed. (shrink)

This comment suggests that Pothos & Busmeyer (P&B) do not provide an intuitive rational foundation for quantum probability (QP) theory to parallel standard logic and classical probability (CP) theory. In particular, the intuitive foundation for standard logic, which underpins CP, is the elimination of contradictions – that is, believing p and not-p is bad. Quantum logic, which underpins QP, explicitly denies non-contradiction, which seems deeply counterintuitive for the macroscopic world about which people must reason. (...) I propose a possible resolution in situation theory. (shrink)

(1) The form of scientific probability sentences is given unambiguously for the first time by quantum mechanics (form (II); all scientific probability statements can be written in this form. (2) The rules of transformation are also determined by quantum mechanics they agree with the axioms given by Reichenbach (1), p. 118. (3) Frequency interpretation agreeing with the statistical tests used in scientific practice can be given in the frame of truth-semantics at least aa a first approximation.

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 nonprobabilistic 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. (shrink)

In this short survey article, I discuss Bell’s theorem and some strategies that attempt to avoid the conclusion of non-locality. I focus on two that intersect with the philosophy of probability: (1) quantum probabilities and (2) superdeterminism. The issues they raised not only apply to a wide class of no-go theorems about quantum mechanics but are also of general philosophical interest.

This paper shows how the classical finite probability theory (with equiprobable outcomes) can be reinterpreted and recast as the quantum probability calculus of a pedagogical or toy model of quantum mechanics over sets (QM/sets). There have been several previous attempts to develop a quantum-like model with the base field of ℂ replaced by ℤ₂. Since there are no inner products on vector spaces over finite fields, the problem is to define the Dirac brackets and (...) the probability calculus. The previous attempts all required the brackets to take values in ℤ₂. But the usual QM brackets <ψ|ϕ> give the "overlap" between states ψ and ϕ, so for subsets S,T⊆U, the natural definition is <S|T>=|S∩T| (taking values in the natural numbers). This allows QM/sets to be developed with a full probability calculus that turns out to be a non-commutative extension of classical Laplace-Boole finite probability theory. The pedagogical model is illustrated by giving simple treatments of the indeterminacy principle, the double-slit experiment, Bell's Theorem, and identical particles in QM/Sets. A more technical appendix explains the mathematics behind carrying some vector space structures between QM over ℂ and QM/Sets over ℤ₂. (shrink)

Probability measures can be constructed using the measure-theoretic techniques of Caratheodory and Hausdorff. Under these constructions one obtains first an outer measure over "events" or "propositions." Then, if one restricts this outer measure to the measurable propositions, one finally obtains a classical probability theory. What I argue is that outer measures can also be used to yield the structures of probability theories in quantum mechanics, provided we permit them to range over at least some unmeasurable (...) propositions. I thereby show that nonclassical probability theories can be seen to arise naturally within the framework of possible worlds semantics. (shrink)

This volume provides a broad perspective on the state of the art in the philosophy and conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics. Its essays take their starting point in the work and influence of Itamar Pitowsky, who has greatly influenced our understanding of what is characteristically non-classical about quantum probabilities and quantum logic, and this serves as a vantage point from which they reflect on key ongoing debates in the field. Readers will find a definitive and multi-faceted description (...) of the major open questions in the foundations of quantum mechanics today, including: Is quantum mechanics a new theory of (contextual) probability? Should the quantum state be interpreted objectively or subjectively? How should probability be understood in the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics? What are the limits of the physical implementation of computation? The impact of this volume goes beyond the exposition of Pitowsky’s influence: it provides a unique collection of essays by leading thinkers containing profound reflections on the field. (shrink)

We develop the concept of quantum probability based on ideas of R. Feynman. The general guidelines of quantum probability are translated into rigorous mathematical definitions. We then compare the resulting framework with that of operational statistics. We discuss various relationship between measurements and define quantum stochastic processes. It is shown that quantum probability includes both conventional probability theory and traditional quantum mechanics. Discrete quantum systems, transition amplitudes, and discrete Feynman (...) amplitudes are treated. We close with some examples that illustrate previously defined concepts. (shrink)

We develop a systematic approach to quantum probability as a theory of rational betting in quantum gambles. In these games of chance, the agent is betting in advance on the outcomes of several (finitely many) incompatible measurements. One of the measurements is subsequently chosen and performed and the money placed on the other measurements is returned to the agent. We show how the rules of rational betting imply all the interesting features of quantum probability, (...) even in such finite gambles. These include the uncertainty principle and the violation of Bell's inequality among others. Quantum gambles are closely related to quantum logic and provide a new semantics for it. We conclude with a philosophical discussion on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. (shrink)

We develop a systematic approach to quantum probability as a theory of rational betting in quantum gambles. In these games of chance the agent is betting in advance on the outcomes of several incompatible measurements. One of the measurements is subsequently chosen and performed and the money placed on the other measurements is returned to the agent. We show how the rules of rational betting imply all the interesting features of quantum probability, even in (...) such finite gambles. These include the uncertainty principle and the violation of Bell's inequality among others. Quantum gambles are closely related to quantum logic and provide a new semantics to it. We conclude with a philosophical discussion on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. (shrink)