Objective Probability in Everettian Quantum Mechanics


Authors
Alastair Wilson
University of Birmingham
Abstract
David Wallace has given a decision-theoretic argument for the Born Rule in the context of Everettian quantum mechanics. This approach promises to resolve some long-standing problems with probability in EQM, but it has faced plenty of resistance. One kind of objection charges that the requisite notion of decision-theoretic uncertainty is unavailable in the Everettian picture, so that the argument cannot gain any traction; another kind of objection grants the proof’s applicability and targets the premises. In this article I propose some novel principles connecting the physics of EQM with the metaphysics of modality, and argue that in the resulting framework the incoherence problem does not arise. These principles also help to justify one of the most controversial premises of Wallace’s argument, ‘branching indifference’. Absent any a priori reason to align the metaphysics with the physics in some other way, the proposed principles can be adopted on grounds of theoretical utility. The upshot is that Everettians can, after all, make clear sense of objective probability. 1 Introduction2 Setup3 Individualism versus Collectivism4 The Ingredients of Indexicalism5 Indexicalism and Incoherence5.1 The trivialization problem5.2 The uncertainty problem6 Indexicalism and Branching Indifference6.1 Introducing branching indifference6.2 The pragmatic defence of branching indifference6.3 The non-existence defence of branching indifference6.4 The indexicalist defence of branching indifference7 Conclusion
Keywords probability  everett interpretation  quantum mechanics  modal metaphysics
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2013
DOI 10.1093/bjps/axs022
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 39,692
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Humean Supervenience Debugged.David Lewis - 1994 - Mind 103 (412):473--490.
Reasons and Persons.Derek Parfit - 1984 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47 (2):311-327.
Vagueness.Loretta Torrago & Timothy Williamson - 1998 - Philosophical Review 107 (4):637.

View all 26 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Everettian Quantum Mechanics and Physical Probability: Against the Principle of “State Supervenience”.Lina Jansson - 2016 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 53:45-53.
In Defence of the Self-Location Uncertainty Account of Probability in the Many-Worlds Interpretation.Kelvin J. McQueen & Lev Vaidman - forthcoming - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics.

View all 10 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Understanding Deutsch's Probability in a Deterministic Universe.Hilary Greaves - 2004 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35 (3):423-456.
Uncertainty and Probability for Branching Selves.Peter J. Lewis - 2006 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38 (1):1-14.
What is Probability?Simon Saunders - 2004 - Arxiv Preprint Quant-Ph/0412194.
Quantum Probability and Many Worlds.Meir Hemmo - 2007 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38 (2):333-350.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2012-03-14

Total views
334 ( #14,401 of 2,327,796 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #276,661 of 2,327,796 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature