Bayesian Conditioning, the Reflection Principle, and Quantum Decoherence ∗

The probabilities a Bayesian agent assigns to a set of events typically change with time, for instance when the agent updates them in the light of new data. In this paper we address the question of how an agent’s probabilities at different times are constrained by Dutch-book coherence. We review and attempt to clarify the argument that, although an agent is not forced by coherence to use the usual Bayesian conditioning rule to update his probabilities, coherence does require the agent’s probabilities to satisfy van Fraassen’s [1984] reflection principle (which entails a related constraint pointed out by Goldstein [1983]). We then exhibit the specialized assumption needed to recover Bayesian conditioning from an analogous reflection-style consideration. Bringing the argument to the context of quantum measurement theory, we show that “quantum decoherence” can be understood in purely personalist terms—quantum decoherence (as supposed in a von Neumann chain) is not a physical process at all, but an application of the reflection principle. From this point of view, the decoherence theory of Zeh, Zurek, and others as a story of quantum measurement has the plot turned exactly backward.

[1]  Bruno de Finetti,et al.  Probabilism , 1989 .

[2]  Paul Teller,et al.  Conditionalization and observation , 1973, Synthese.

[3]  C. Fuchs,et al.  Unknown Quantum States: The Quantum de Finetti Representation , 2001, quant-ph/0104088.

[4]  F. Ramsey The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays , 2001 .

[5]  David Christensen,et al.  Clever Bookies and Coherent Beliefs , 1991 .

[6]  B. Skyrms Dynamic Coherence and Probability Kinematics , 1987, Philosophy of Science.

[7]  C. Fuchs QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism , 2010, 1003.5209.

[8]  I. Pitowsky,et al.  Two Dogmas About Quantum Mechanics , 2007, 0712.4258.

[9]  I. Pitowsky,et al.  Betting on the Outcomes of Measurements: A Bayesian Theory of Quantum Probability , 2002, quant-ph/0208121.

[10]  Bas C. van Fraassen,et al.  Belief and the problem of Ulysses and the sirens , 1995 .

[11]  Isaac L. Chuang,et al.  Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (10th Anniversary edition) , 2011 .

[12]  M. Goldstein The Prevision of a Prevision , 1983 .

[13]  Peter Urbach,et al.  Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach , 1989 .

[14]  William Demopoulos,et al.  Physical theory and its interpretation : essays in honor of Jeffrey Bub , 2006 .

[15]  Itamar Pitowsky Quantum Mechanics as a Theory of Probability , 2006 .

[16]  Glenn Shafer,et al.  A subjective interpretation of conditional probability , 1983, J. Philos. Log..

[17]  Henry Rutgers Marshall Belief and Will , 1899, The International Journal of Ethics.

[18]  I. Chuang,et al.  Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: Bibliography , 2010 .

[19]  H. Jeffreys,et al.  Theory of probability , 1896 .

[20]  Mitchell S. Green,et al.  Reflections on reflection: Van Fraassen on belief , 1994, Synthese.

[21]  P. Maher,et al.  DIACHRONIC RATIONALITY * , 2008 .

[22]  Ramona B. Swaine Theory of Probability (Vols. 1 and 2) , 1981 .

[23]  C. Aitken,et al.  The logic of decision , 2014 .

[24]  Sandy L. Zabell,et al.  Ramsey, truth, and probability , 2008 .

[25]  A. Kent,et al.  Many worlds? : Everett, quantum theory, and reality , 2010 .

[26]  Maximilian Schlosshauer,et al.  Decoherence and the Quantum-To-Classical Transition , 2008 .

[27]  Brian Skyrms,et al.  A Mistake in Dynamic Coherence Arguments? , 1993, Philosophy of Science.

[28]  Ruediger Schack,et al.  Quantum-Bayesian Coherence , 2009, 1301.3274.

[29]  Ian Hacking,et al.  Slightly More Realistic Personal Probability , 1967, Philosophy of Science.