This paper is intended to show that a review in the concept of the game theoretical utility, the revised utility to be applied to the definition of the utility of a wave function representing an object subsystem relative to its observer subsystem, both within an isolated system, leads to the emergence of Max Born's rule as a profit under a von Neumann good measure game.
Position of the problemThe quantum mechanics is constructed upon a crucial pillar connecting the quantum and classical worlds: Max Born's postulate. The essence of this postulate, or simply Born's rule, is:• A quantum object ∀k a k φ k , represented in an orthonormal basis {φ k } that consists of eigenstates of a physical quantity A, instantaneously collapses onto an eigenstate (or subspace) of A (say φ k ). This occurs with probability a * k a k , when A is measured, and when the eigenvalue α k of A is obtained. There are a lot of manners to write Born's rule, but the above is sufficient to our purposes. Under the canonical formulation of the quantum mechanics, both, the collapse and its probability, do not permit the investigation of a mechanism regarding the probabilistical character encrusted to the collapse, since both are ad hoc assumptions which are pillars of the theory. The probability is inherent to the collapse [1].Instead of that axiomatic ultimatum, this paper focuses on a new approach to obtain Born's rule, i.e., it is concerned with the answers for the following questions:• Why a * k a k emerges as an usefull scale of measure connecting a quantum object to its observer?• Why this usefull scale is perceived as probabilities of collapse onto eigenstates φ k ?We will show that the definition of the game theoretical utility, often misunderstood as a probabilistic defined object inherent to the axiomatic structure of the theory of games due to von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern, leads to the first answer. A crucial question will emerge: What is the utility of a wave function representing a quantum object? Answering this question, the connection between utility and a * k a k appears, and the first question turns out to be answered.Here, one may argue that the game theoretical approach was already done by David Deutsch [2]. The point is: the approach used in this paper is non-circular, it does not have inherent taulology. The utility interpretation used here is free of circularity, representing an essential step forward in the decoherence problem: some state of affairs regarding hidden utilitary mechanism used by nature, connecting the quantum and the *