We present an elementary proof of the quantum de Finetti representation theorem, a quantum analogue of de Finetti’s classical theorem on exchangeable probability assignments. This contrasts with the original proof of Hudson and Moody [Z. Wahrschein. verw. Geb. 33, 343 (1976)], which relies on advanced mathematics and does not share the same potential for generalization. The classical de Finetti theorem provides an operational definition of the concept of an unknown probability in Bayesian probability theory, where probabilities are taken to be degrees of belief instead of objective states of nature. The quantum de Finetti theorem, in a closely analogous fashion, deals with exchangeable density-operator assignments and provides an operational definition of the concept of an “unknown quantum state ” in quantum-state tomography. This result is especially important for information-based interpretations of quantum mechanics, where quantum states, like probabilities, are taken to be states of knowledge rather than states of nature. We further demonstrate that the theorem fails for real Hilbert spaces and discuss the significance of this point. I.

Quantum theory does not only predict probabilities, but also relative phases for any experiment, that involves measurements of an ensemble of systems at different moments of time. We argue, that any operational formulation of quantum theory needs an algebra of observables and an object that incorporates the information about relative phases and probabilities. The latter is the (de)coherence functional, introduced by the consistent histories approach to quantum theory. The acceptance of relative phases as a primitive ingredient of any quantum theory, liberates us from the need to use a Hilbert space and non-commutative observables. It is shown, that quantum phenomena are adequately described by a theory of relative phases and non-additive probabilities on the classical phase space. The only difference lies on the type of observables that correspond to sharp measurements. This class of theories does not suffer from the consequences of Bell’s theorem (it is not a theory of Kolmogorov probabilities) and Kochen- Specker’s theorem (it has distributive ”logic”). We discuss its predictability properties, the meaning of the classical limit and attempt to see if it can be experimentally distinguished from standard quantum theory. Our construction is operational and statistical, in the spirit of Kopenhagen, but makes plausible the existence of a realist, geometric theory for individual quantum systems. I

Abstract not found

A framework for the mind-matter problem in a holistic universe which has no parts is outlined. The conceptual structure of modern quantum theory suggests to use complementary Boolean descriptions as elements for a more comprehensive non-Boolean description of a world without an apriorigiven mind-matter distinction. Such a description in terms of a locally Boolean but globally non-Boolean structure makes allowance for the fact that Boolean descriptions play a privileged role in science. If we accept the insight that there are no ultimate building blocks, the existence of holistic correlations between contextually chosen parts is a natural consequence. The main problem of a genuinely non-Boolean description is to find an appropriate partition of the universe of discourse. If we adopt the idea that all fundamental laws of physics are invariant under time translations, then we can consider a partition of the world into a tenseless and a tensed domain. In the sense of a regulative principle, the material domain is defined as the tenseless domain with its homogeneous time. The tensed domain contains the mental domain with a tensed time characterized by a privileged position, the Now. Since this partition refers to two complementary descriptions which are not given apriori,wehavetoexpectcorrelations between these two domains. In physics it corresponds to Newton’s separation of universal laws of nature and contingent initial conditions. Both descriptions have a non-Boolean structure and can be encompassed into a single non-Boolean description. Tensed and tenseless time can be synchronized by holistic correlations. 1.