Quick Navigation
Topics
Open Quantum Systems Decoherence
Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations
Quantum Foundations
Two Forms of Inconsistency in Quantum Foundations
arXiv
Authors: Jeremy Steeger, Nicholas Teh
Year
2017
Paper ID
24698
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
106
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Recently, there has been some discussion of how Dutch Book arguments might be used to demonstrate the rational incoherence of certain hidden variable models of quantum theory (Feintzeig and Fletcher 2017). In this paper, we argue that the 'form of inconsistency' underlying this alleged irrationality is deeply and comprehensively related to the more familiar 'inconsistency' phenomenon of contextuality. Our main result is that the hierarchy of contextuality due to Abramsky and Brandenburger (2011) corresponds to a hierarchy of additivity/convexity-violations which yields formal Dutch Books of different strengths. We then use this result to provide a partial assessment of whether these formal Dutch Books can be interpreted normatively.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2017 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Recently, there has been some discussion of how Dutch Book arguments might be used to demonstrate the rational incoherence of certain hidden variable models of quantum theory...
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.