David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Simon Saunders, Jonathan Barrett, Adrian Kent & David Wallace (eds.), Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality. Oxford University Press (2010)
Much of the evidence for quantum mechanics is statistical in nature. The Everett interpretation, if it is to be a candidate for serious consideration, must be capable of doing justice to reasoning on which statistical evidence in which observed relative frequencies that closely match calculated probabilities counts as evidence in favour of a theory from which the probabilities are calculated. Since, on the Everett interpretation, all outcomes with nonzero amplitude are actualized on diﬀerent branches, it is not obvious that sense can be made of ascribing probabilities to outcomes of experiments, and this poses a prima facie problem for statistical inference. It is incumbent on the Everettian either to make sense of ascribing probabilities to outcomes of experiments in the Everett interpretation, or to ﬁnd a substitute on which the usual statistical analysis of experimental results continues to count as evidence for quantum mechanics, and, since it is the very evidence for quantum mechanics that is at stake, this must be done in a way that does not presuppose the correctness of Everettian quantum mechanics. This requires an account of theory conﬁrmation that applies to branching-universe theories but does not presuppose the correctness of any such theory. In this paper, we supply and defend such an account. The account has the consequence that statistical evidence can conﬁrm a branching-universe theory such as Everettian quantum mechanics in the same way in which it can conﬁrm a probabilistic theory.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Alastair Wilson (forthcoming). The Quantum Doomsday Argument. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axv035.
Jeffrey A. Barrett (2015). Pure Wave Mechanics and the Very Idea of Empirical Adequacy. Synthese 192 (10):3071-3104.
Lina Jansson (2016). Everettian Quantum Mechanics and Physical Probability: Against the Principle of “State Supervenience”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 53:45-53.
Richard Dawid & Karim P. Y. Thébault (2014). Against the Empirical Viability of the Deutsch–Wallace–Everett Approach to Quantum Mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 47:55-61.
Similar books and articles
Simon Saunders (forthcoming). What is Probability? Arxiv Preprint Quant-Ph/0412194.
Hilary Greaves (2007). Probability in the Everett Interpretation. Philosophy Compass 2 (1):109–128.
Paul Tappenden (2011). Evidence and Uncertainty in Everett's Multiverse. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62 (1):99-123.
David Baker (2007). Measurement Outcomes and Probability in Everettian Quantum Mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 38 (1):153-169.
Jeffrey A. Barrett (1995). The Single-Mind and Many-Minds Versions of Quantum Mechanics. Erkenntnis 42 (1):89-105.
Alexander Wilce (2010). Formalism and Interpretation in Quantum Theory. Foundations of Physics 40 (4):434-462.
Peter J. Lewis (2010). Probability in Everettian Quantum Mechanics. Manuscrito 33 (1):285--306.
Jeffrey Barrett (2008). Everett's Relative-State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads76 ( #60,175 of 1,938,712 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #124,239 of 1,938,712 )
How can I increase my downloads?