Interesting paper, but from skimming it without grokking all the mathematics, it looks to me like it doesn’t quite prove the Born rule from decision theory, only proves that given the empirical existence of the Born rule in our universe, a rational agent should abide by it. Am I understanding the paper correctly?
My understanding is the proof doesn’t use empirical frequencies—though if we observed different frequencies, we’d have to start doubting either QM or the proof. The question is just whether the proof’s assumptions are true rationality constraints or “wouldn’t it be convenient if” constraints.
I think the paper starts from the empirical existence of Born rule “weights” and attempts to explain in what sense they should be treated, decision-theoretically, as classical probabilities (since in the MWI sense, everything that might happen does happen) - but I admit I didn’t grok the mathematics either.
Interesting paper, but from skimming it without grokking all the mathematics, it looks to me like it doesn’t quite prove the Born rule from decision theory, only proves that given the empirical existence of the Born rule in our universe, a rational agent should abide by it. Am I understanding the paper correctly?
My understanding is the proof doesn’t use empirical frequencies—though if we observed different frequencies, we’d have to start doubting either QM or the proof. The question is just whether the proof’s assumptions are true rationality constraints or “wouldn’t it be convenient if” constraints.
Everett and Evidence is another highly relevant paper.
I think the paper starts from the empirical existence of Born rule “weights” and attempts to explain in what sense they should be treated, decision-theoretically, as classical probabilities (since in the MWI sense, everything that might happen does happen) - but I admit I didn’t grok the mathematics either.