Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T15:36:30.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Is quantum probability rational?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2013

Alasdair I. Houston
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UG, United Kingdom. a.i.houston@bristol.ac.ukhttp://www.bristol.ac.uk/biology/people/alasdair-i-houston/overview.html
Karoline Wiesner
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TW, United Kingdom. k.wiesner@bristol.ac.ukhttp://www.maths.bristol.ac.uk/~enxkw/

Abstract

We concentrate on two aspects of the article by Pothos & Busemeyer (P&B): the relationship between classical and quantum probability and quantum probability as a basis for rational decisions. We argue that the mathematical relationship between classical and quantum probability is not quite what the authors claim. Furthermore, it might be premature to regard quantum probability as the best practical rational scheme for decision making.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Houston, A. I., McNamara, J. M. & Steer, M. D. (2007a) Do we expect natural selection to produce rational behaviour? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 362:1531–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houston, A. I., McNamara, J. M. & Steer, M. D. (2007b) Violations of transitivity under fitness maximization. Biology Letters 3:365–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNamara, J. M., Trimmer, P. C. & Houston, A. I. (2012) The ecological rationality of state-dependent valuation. Psychological Review 119:114–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Streater, R. F. (2000) Classical and quantum probability. Journal of Mathematical and Physics 41:3556–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar