IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/m38x6.html

Quantum theory within the probability calculus: a there-you-go theorem and partially exchangeable models

Author

Listed:
  • Porta Mana, PierGianLuca

    (Norwegian University of Science and Technology)

Abstract

"Ever since the advent of modern quantum mechanics in the late 1920's, the idea has been prevalent that the classical laws of probability cease, in some sense, to be valid in the new theory. [...] The primary object of this presentation is to show that the thesis in question is entirely without validity and is the product of a confused view of the laws of probability" (Koopman, 1957). The secondary objects are: to show that quantum inferences are cases of partially exchangeable statistical models with particular prior constraints; to wonder about such constraints; and to plead for a dialogue between quantum theory and the theory of exchangeable models.

Suggested Citation

  • Porta Mana, PierGianLuca, 2018. "Quantum theory within the probability calculus: a there-you-go theorem and partially exchangeable models," OSF Preprints m38x6, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:m38x6
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/m38x6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5a9d69bbf63187000f0e2b18/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/m38x6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kallenberg, Olav, 1989. "On the representation theorem for exchangeable arrays," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 137-154, July.
    2. Ramsey, Frank P., 1926. "Truth and Probability," Histoy of Economic Thought Chapters, in: Braithwaite, R. B. (ed.),The Foundations of Mathematics and other Logical Essays, chapter 7, pages 156-198, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought.
    3. Porta Mana, PierGianLuca, 2003. "Why can states and measurement outcomes be represented as vectors?," OSF Preprints q9frx, Center for Open Science.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    2. Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon, 2007. "Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 538-567, November.
    3. Jean Baccelli & Philippe Mongin, 2016. "Choice-based cardinal utility: a tribute to Patrick Suppes," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 268-288, July.
    4. Hardaker, J. B., 1982. "Fundamental Aspects Of Risk And Uncertainty In Agriculture," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 21(2), October.
    5. Panagiotidis, Theodore & Printzis, Panagiotis, 2020. "What is the investment loss due to uncertainty?," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    6. Chernov, G. & Susin, I., 2019. "Models of learning in games: An overview," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 44(4), pages 77-125.
    7. Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2015. "In Praise of Frank Ramsey's Contribution to the Theory of Taxation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(583), pages 235-268, March.
    8. John Kay, 2022. "Commentary on "Selecting futures: The role of conviction, narratives, ambivalence, and constructive doubt" by Fenton‐O'Creevy and Tuckett (2021)," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(3-4), September.
    9. Laurent Davezies & Xavier D'Haultf{oe}uille & Yannick Guyonvarch, 2025. "Analytic inference with two-way clustering," Papers 2506.20749, arXiv.org.
    10. Zellweger, Thomas & Zenger, Todd, 2022. "Entrepreneurs as scientists, Bayesian inference, and belief revision," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).
    11. Carlo Zappia, 2008. "Non-Bayesian decision theory ante-litteram: the case of G. L. S. Shackle," Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID) University of Siena 0408, Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID), University of Siena.
    12. Marcello Basili, 2006. "A Rational Decision Rule with Extreme Events," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1721-1728, December.
    13. repec:osf:osfxxx:m38x6_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Petr Hebák, 2012. "A Comparison of Classical and Bayesian Probability and Statitics (1) [Srovnání klasické a Bayesovské pravděpodobnosti a statistiky (1.)]," Acta Oeconomica Pragensia, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2012(1), pages 69-87.
    15. K.Vela Velupillai, 2014. "de Finetti's Theory of Probability and its Jaynesian Critique," ASSRU Discussion Papers 1406, ASSRU - Algorithmic Social Science Research Unit.
    16. Oleg Yu Vorobyev, 2018. "The logic of uncertainty as a logic of experience and chance and the co~event-based Bayes' theorem," Papers 1810.01310, arXiv.org.
    17. Rolf Aaberge, 2011. "Empirical rules of thumb for choice under uncertainty," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 431-438, September.
    18. Adrian C. Darnell, 1994. "A Dictionary Of Econometrics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 118, March.
    19. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Rasocha, Vlastimil, 2021. "Experimental methods: Eliciting beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 234-256.
    20. Davezies, Laurent & D’Haultfœuille, Xavier & Guyonvarch, Yannick, 2022. "The Marcinkiewicz–Zygmund law of large numbers for exchangeable arrays," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    21. Shiva Maharaj & Nicholas Polson & Christian Turk, 2021. "Gambits: Theory and Evidence," Papers 2110.02755, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:m38x6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.