Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1609.04720

Chance in the Everett interpretation

Saunders, Simon

Published Sep 15, 2016• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The notion of objective probability or chance, as a physical trait of the world, has proved elusive; the identification of chances with actual frequencies does not succeed. An adequate theory of chance should explain not only the connection of chance with statistics, but with degrees of belief, and more broadly the entire phenomenology of (seemingly) chance events and their measurement. Branching structure in the decoherence-based many worlds theory provides an account of what chance is that satisfies all these desiderata, including the requirement that chance involves uncertainty.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1609.04720

Related papers

Chance in the Everett Interpretation

Simon W. Saunders

Abstract The concept of objective probability — chance — has three distinctive features: chances are measured by statistics, but only with high chance, increasing with the number of trials involved; when the chances of the outcomes of a chance process are known, even in the context of a single trial, then one's subjective probabilities — credences — in those outcomes should be set equal to those chances; and finally, chance processes involve uncertainty as to the outcomes of those processes. The second of these features is established for ratios in the squared norms of branches by the Born-rule theorem, proved in Chapter 8. This chapter shows that the first and third hold for those same quantities. All three characteristics of chance thus apply to branching in the Everett interpretation. In consequence, branching processes should be identified with chance processes, and ratios in the squared norms with chances.

•Jun 24, 2010•73 citations

Chance in branching worlds

Toby Handfield

As we saw in the previous chapter, the Everett interpretation seems to dispense with probabilities in quantum mechanics. Instead of describing a world for which many things are possible, but only some of those possibilities are actualised, it suggests a world in which all possibilities actually happen . Moreover, this is something of which we can be absolutely certain . Obviously, this does not straightforwardly fit our experience. We do not see multiple possibilities becoming actual. Whenever we measure a superposed particle, we observe only one property or another. Moreover, we have a very useful probabilistic rule to help us to predict what we will see. How can the success of this probabilistic rule be explained, if an Everett world does not involve any uncertainty? There are two main moves that are employed in response to this challenge. The first – what I call Stage A – is to show that there is a relevant sort of uncertainty, even in a universe where we are certain that everything will happen. The second move – Stage B – is to try to vindicate the probability of the Born rule in particular. That is, to show that we should not merely be uncertain about the future, but that we have good reason to attach the particular probabilities dictated by the Born rule to the possible outcomes of a quantum experiment. We will consider these two stages in turn.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 5, 2012•0 citations

Modal Metaphysics and the Everett Interpretation

Alastair Wilson

Recent work on probability in the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics yields a decision-theoretic derivation of David Lewis’ Principal Principle, and hence a general metaphysical theory of probability; part 1 is a discussion of this remarkable result. I defend the claim that the ‘subjective uncertainty’ principle is required for the derivation to succeed, arguing that it amounts to a theoretical identification of chance. In part 2, I generalize this account, and suggest that the Everett interpretation, in combination with a plausible view of natural laws, has the potential to provide a reductive theory of metaphysical modality. I defend the resulting naturalistic modal realism, and outline some of its implications for other parts of metaphysics.

•Jan 1, 2006•3 citations

Centering the Everett Interpretation

Isaac Wilhelm

Abstract I propose an account of probability in the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics. According to the account, probabilities are objective chances of centered propositions. As I show, the account solves a number of problems concerning the role of probability in the Everett interpretation. It also challenges an implicit assumption, concerning the aim and scope of fundamental physical theories, that is made throughout the philosophy of physics literature.

The Philosophical Quarterly•Dec 9, 2021•12 citations

Chance in quantum physics

Toby Handfield

In trying to develop a theory of chance, I have so far drawn largely on a metaphysical picture inspired by classical physics, and have used statistical mechanics as my central example of chance arising in physical theories. It has proven difficult to develop an adequate theory of chance. But perhaps things will look different if we turn to quantum mechanics. The theory of quantum mechanics is extremely well confirmed. It is doubtful whether it is strictly true in its current form, due to the well-known conflict between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity, but it is an outstandingly good example of a successful physical theory, and it represents a stark break from earlier models of the physical world. Perhaps by tapping into these resources, we can develop an adequate metaphysics of chance. The quantum mechanical world It is widely believed that quantum mechanics is starkly opposed to classical physics, because quantum mechanics claims that the world is governed by fundamentally indeterministic laws. As it happens, this common belief oversimplifies somewhat. Quantum mechanics is a theory that is formulated in relatively mathematical terms, quite removed from concepts of directly observable physical entities. Consequently, there is a great deal of room for interpretation of the meaning of the mathematics. Indeed, there are at least three interpretations of quantum mechanics which are serious candidates for giving an adequate account of how the mathematics relates to reality.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 5, 2012•0 citations

A Fair Deal for Everettians

David Papineau

Abstract Those who criticize the Everett interpretation on the grounds that it makes no sense of probability apply a double-standard, for no other physical theory of probability does any better in explaining probability or in deriving its link with decision theory. In fact, others do worse, for in any one world theory it is a mystery as to why, given that only a single outcome of a chance process occurs, we should nevertheless act so as to maximize expected utilities, which involves all possible outcomes of a chance process. This difficulty does not apply to the Everett interpretation, in which all outcomes happen.

•Jun 24, 2010•32 citations
The notion of objective probability or chance, as a physical trait of the world, has proved elusive; the identification of chances with actual frequencies does not succeed. An adequate theory of chance should explain not only the connection of chance with statistics, but with degrees of belief, and more broadly the entire phenomenology of (seemingly) chance events and their measurement. Branching structure in the decoherence-based many worlds theory provides an account of what chance is that satisfies all these desiderata, including the requirement that chance involves uncertainty.
Abstract The concept of objective probability — chance — has three distinctive features: chances are measured by statistics, but only with high chance, increasing with the number of trials involved; when the chances of the outcomes of a chance process are known, even in the context of a single trial, then one's subjective probabilities — credences — in those outcomes should be set equal to those chances; and finally, chance processes involve uncertainty as to the outcomes of those processes. The second of these features is established for ratios in the squared norms of branches by the Born-rule theorem, proved in Chapter 8. This chapter shows that the first and third hold for those same quantities. All three characteristics of chance thus apply to branching in the Everett interpretation. In consequence, branching processes should be identified with chance processes, and ratios in the squared norms with chances.
As we saw in the previous chapter, the Everett interpretation seems to dispense with probabilities in quantum mechanics. Instead of describing a world for which many things are possible, but only some of those possibilities are actualised, it suggests a world in which all possibilities actually happen . Moreover, this is something of which we can be absolutely certain . Obviously, this does not straightforwardly fit our experience. We do not see multiple possibilities becoming actual. Whenever we measure a superposed particle, we observe only one property or another. Moreover, we have a very useful probabilistic rule to help us to predict what we will see. How can the success of this probabilistic rule be explained, if an Everett world does not involve any uncertainty? There are two main moves that are employed in response to this challenge. The first – what I call Stage A – is to show that there is a relevant sort of uncertainty, even in a universe where we are certain that everything will happen. The second move – Stage B – is to try to vindicate the probability of the Born rule in particular. That is, to show that we should not merely be uncertain about the future, but that we have good reason to attach the particular probabilities dictated by the Born rule to the possible outcomes of a quantum experiment. We will consider these two stages in turn.
Recent work on probability in the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics yields a decision-theoretic derivation of David Lewis’ Principal Principle, and hence a general metaphysical theory of probability; part 1 is a discussion of this remarkable result. I defend the claim that the ‘subjective uncertainty’ principle is required for the derivation to succeed, arguing that it amounts to a theoretical identification of chance. In part 2, I generalize this account, and suggest that the Everett interpretation, in combination with a plausible view of natural laws, has the potential to provide a reductive theory of metaphysical modality. I defend the resulting naturalistic modal realism, and outline some of its implications for other parts of metaphysics.
In trying to develop a theory of chance, I have so far drawn largely on a metaphysical picture inspired by classical physics, and have used statistical mechanics as my central example of chance arising in physical theories. It has proven difficult to develop an adequate theory of chance. But perhaps things will look different if we turn to quantum mechanics. The theory of quantum mechanics is extremely well confirmed. It is doubtful whether it is strictly true in its current form, due to the well-known conflict between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity, but it is an outstandingly good example of a successful physical theory, and it represents a stark break from earlier models of the physical world. Perhaps by tapping into these resources, we can develop an adequate metaphysics of chance. The quantum mechanical world It is widely believed that quantum mechanics is starkly opposed to classical physics, because quantum mechanics claims that the world is governed by fundamentally indeterministic laws. As it happens, this common belief oversimplifies somewhat. Quantum mechanics is a theory that is formulated in relatively mathematical terms, quite removed from concepts of directly observable physical entities. Consequently, there is a great deal of room for interpretation of the meaning of the mathematics. Indeed, there are at least three interpretations of quantum mechanics which are serious candidates for giving an adequate account of how the mathematics relates to reality.
Abstract Those who criticize the Everett interpretation on the grounds that it makes no sense of probability apply a double-standard, for no other physical theory of probability does any better in explaining probability or in deriving its link with decision theory. In fact, others do worse, for in any one world theory it is a mystery as to why, given that only a single outcome of a chance process occurs, we should nevertheless act so as to maximize expected utilities, which involves all possible outcomes of a chance process. This difficulty does not apply to the Everett interpretation, in which all outcomes happen.