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:1702.02140

Objective Probability and the Mind-Body Relation

Paul Tappenden

Published Feb 7, 2017• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Objective probability in quantum mechanics is often thought to involve a stochastic process whereby an actual future is selected from a range of possibilities. Everett's seminal idea is that all possible definite futures on the pointer basis exist as components of a macroscopic linear superposition. I demonstrate that these two conceptions of what is involved in quantum processes are linked by two alternative interpretation of the mind-body relation. This leads to a fission, rather than divergence, interpretation of Everettian theory and to a novel explanation of why a principle of indifference does not apply to self-location uncertainty for a post-measurement, pre-observation subject, just as Sebens and Carroll claim. Their Epistemic Separability Principle is shown to arise out of this explanation and the derivation of the Born rule for Everettian theory is thereby put on a firmer footing.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1702.02140

Related papers

Self-locating Uncertainty and the Origin of Probability in Everettian Quantum Mechanics

Charles T. Sebens, Sean M. Carroll

A longstanding issue in attempts to understand the Everett (many-worlds) approach to quantum mechanics is the origin of the Born rule: why is the probability given by the square of the amplitude? Following Vaidman, we note that observers are in a position of self-locating uncertainty during the period between the branches of the wave function splitting via decoherence and the observer registering the outcome of the measurement. In this period, it is tempting to regard each branch as equiprobable, but we argue that the temptation should be resisted. Applying lessons from this analysis, we demonstrate (using methods similar to those of Zurek’s envariance-based derivation) that the Born rule is the uniquely rational way of apportioning credence in Everettian quantum mechanics. In doing so, we rely on a single key principle: changes to the environment alone do not affect the probabilities one ought to assign to measurement outcomes in a local subsystem. We arrive at a method for assigning probabilities in cases that involve both classical and quantum self-locating uncertainty. This method provides unique answers to quantum Sleeping Beauty problems, as well as a well-defined procedure for calculating probabilities in quantum cosmological multiverses with multiple similar observers. 1. Introduction2. Preliminaries: Many-Worlds, Self-locating Uncertainty, and Branch-counting 2.1. The many-worlds interpretation2.2. Self-locating uncertainty and the Everettian multiverse2.3. Indifference and the quantitative probability problem2.4. Against branch-counting3. The Epistemic Irrelevance of the Environment 3.1. The epistemic separability principle3.2. Deriving the Born rule4. Varieties of Uncertainty 4.1. Epistemic separability principle and indifference4.2. Mixed uncertainties4.3. Large universe cosmology and the quantum multiverse5. Probability in Practice 5.1. Betting and branching5.2. Theory confirmation6. Comparison to Other Approaches 6.1. Zurek’s envariance-based derivation of the Born rule6.2. The decision-theoretic programme7. ConclusionAppendix

arXiv:1405.7577•The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Jul 5, 2016•104 citations

Self-Locating Uncertainty, Subjective Probability and the Everett Interpretation

Fraser, Keith

This paper analyses an attempt to reintroduce the probabilistic predictions of quantum mechanics into the Everett interpretation. An overview of the measurement problem and the Everett interpretation are first given, with particular attention paid to the issue of probability within a deterministic theory. An argument is put forth that observers in an Everettian multiverse generically experience a period of post-measurement uncertainty in regards to their location. It is further argued that this uncertainty allows pre-measurement to observers to act as if they are uncertain about future outcomes. This is then the justification for attaching probabilities to the squared moduli of the wave function. It is also noted that there is an assumption of typicality present in discussions of probability within Everett and some arguments to justify this assumption are considered.

•Jan 1, 2014•0 citations

Everett’s Multiverse and the World as Wavefunction

Paul Tappenden

Everett suggested that there’s no such thing as wavefunction collapse. He hypothesized that for an idealized spin measurement the apparatus evolves into a superposition on the pointer basis of two apparatuses, each displaying one of the two outcomes which are standardly thought of as alternatives. As a result, the observer ‘splits’ into two observers, each perceiving a different outcome. There have been problems. Why the pointer basis? Decoherence is generally accepted by Everettian theorists to be the key to the right answer there. Also, in what sense is probability involved, when all possible outcomes occur? Everett’s response to that problem was inadequate. A first attempt to find a different route to probability was introduce by Neil Graham in 1973 and the path from there has led to two distinct models of branching. I describe how the ideas have evolved and their relation to the concepts of uncertainty and objective probability. Then I describe the further problem of wavefunction monism, emphasized by Maudlin, and make a suggestion as to how it might be resolved.

arXiv:1912.06821•Quantum Reports•Sep 12, 2019•4 citations

The Measurement Problem and the Sebens-Carroll Derivation of the Born Rule

Alexander Ma, Gabriel Wong

The measurement problem remains one of the most profound puzzles in the foundation of quantum mechanics. It contains two distinct aspects: the collapse of the wavefunction and the origin of probabilities. While Everettian Quantum Mechanics (EQM) and the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) work around the collapse aspect, by positing that the universe branches through pure unitary evolution, it leaves unresolved the question of why measurement outcomes occur with frequencies given by the Born Rule. This paper explores a recent derivation of the Born Rule by Carroll and Sebens based on principles of Self-Locating Uncertainty (SLU) and the Epistemic Separability Principle (ESP). By examining this framework in detail, beginning with an equal amplitude case and extending to an unequal amplitude case, we show how these principles account for the probabilities given by the Born Rule, hence showing that SLU and the ESP, within the scope of EQM, offer a solution to the measurement problem. We further show the significance and implications of deriving the Born Rule and highlight the relevance of the measurement problem to more recent developments like quantum gravity.

American journal of student research.•Jan 1, 2025•0 citations

Epistemic Separability and Everettian Branches: A Critique of Sebens and Carroll

Richard Dawid, Simon Friederich

We discuss the proposal by Sebens and Carroll to derive the Born rule in Everettian quantum mechanics from a principle they call ‘ESP-QM’. We argue that the proposal fails: ESP-QM is not, as Sebens and Carroll argue, a ‘less general version’ of an independently plausible principle, ESP, and can only be motivated by the empirical success of quantum mechanics, including use of the Born rule. Therefore, ESP-QM cannot have the status of a meta-theoretical principle of reasoning and provides no viable basis for deriving the Born rule.

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Jan 28, 2020•4 citations

Does Probability Require a Single History?

Jonathan Baxter

Everettian quantum mechanics is often said to lack coherent probability because every possible measurement result occurs. If all of them exist globally, what is probability supposed to be a probability of? This paper defends an axiomatic answer: normalized Born measure is postulated as objective probability over the records borne by an observer's future continuations. Collapse interpretations likewise postulate the Born probabilities, but instead assign them to possible global outcomes. Neither theory derives the probabilities from its ontology. The contribution is an explicit record-level probability model that separates probabilities for future local records from certainty about their global existence. I use this model to answer objections to the axiomatic approach and argue that neither global selection nor a further theory of personal persistence is required. At the level of recorded results, the Everettian law supports the same predictions and empirical inferences as the collapse law, despite the theories' different ontologies.

quant-pharXiv:2608.22733•Aug 25, 2026•0 citations
Objective probability in quantum mechanics is often thought to involve a stochastic process whereby an actual future is selected from a range of possibilities. Everett's seminal idea is that all possible definite futures on the pointer basis exist as components of a macroscopic linear superposition. I demonstrate that these two conceptions of what is involved in quantum processes are linked by two alternative interpretation of the mind-body relation. This leads to a fission, rather than divergence, interpretation of Everettian theory and to a novel explanation of why a principle of indifference does not apply to self-location uncertainty for a post-measurement, pre-observation subject, just as Sebens and Carroll claim. Their Epistemic Separability Principle is shown to arise out of this explanation and the derivation of the Born rule for Everettian theory is thereby put on a firmer footing.
A longstanding issue in attempts to understand the Everett (many-worlds) approach to quantum mechanics is the origin of the Born rule: why is the probability given by the square of the amplitude? Following Vaidman, we note that observers are in a position of self-locating uncertainty during the period between the branches of the wave function splitting via decoherence and the observer registering the outcome of the measurement. In this period, it is tempting to regard each branch as equiprobable, but we argue that the temptation should be resisted. Applying lessons from this analysis, we demonstrate (using methods similar to those of Zurek’s envariance-based derivation) that the Born rule is the uniquely rational way of apportioning credence in Everettian quantum mechanics. In doing so, we rely on a single key principle: changes to the environment alone do not affect the probabilities one ought to assign to measurement outcomes in a local subsystem. We arrive at a method for assigning probabilities in cases that involve both classical and quantum self-locating uncertainty. This method provides unique answers to quantum Sleeping Beauty problems, as well as a well-defined procedure for calculating probabilities in quantum cosmological multiverses with multiple similar observers. 1. Introduction2. Preliminaries: Many-Worlds, Self-locating Uncertainty, and Branch-counting 2.1. The many-worlds interpretation2.2. Self-locating uncertainty and the Everettian multiverse2.3. Indifference and the quantitative probability problem2.4. Against branch-counting3. The Epistemic Irrelevance of the Environment 3.1. The epistemic separability principle3.2. Deriving the Born rule4. Varieties of Uncertainty 4.1. Epistemic separability principle and indifference4.2. Mixed uncertainties4.3. Large universe cosmology and the quantum multiverse5. Probability in Practice 5.1. Betting and branching5.2. Theory confirmation6. Comparison to Other Approaches 6.1. Zurek’s envariance-based derivation of the Born rule6.2. The decision-theoretic programme7. ConclusionAppendix
This paper analyses an attempt to reintroduce the probabilistic predictions of quantum mechanics into the Everett interpretation. An overview of the measurement problem and the Everett interpretation are first given, with particular attention paid to the issue of probability within a deterministic theory. An argument is put forth that observers in an Everettian multiverse generically experience a period of post-measurement uncertainty in regards to their location. It is further argued that this uncertainty allows pre-measurement to observers to act as if they are uncertain about future outcomes. This is then the justification for attaching probabilities to the squared moduli of the wave function. It is also noted that there is an assumption of typicality present in discussions of probability within Everett and some arguments to justify this assumption are considered.
Everett suggested that there’s no such thing as wavefunction collapse. He hypothesized that for an idealized spin measurement the apparatus evolves into a superposition on the pointer basis of two apparatuses, each displaying one of the two outcomes which are standardly thought of as alternatives. As a result, the observer ‘splits’ into two observers, each perceiving a different outcome. There have been problems. Why the pointer basis? Decoherence is generally accepted by Everettian theorists to be the key to the right answer there. Also, in what sense is probability involved, when all possible outcomes occur? Everett’s response to that problem was inadequate. A first attempt to find a different route to probability was introduce by Neil Graham in 1973 and the path from there has led to two distinct models of branching. I describe how the ideas have evolved and their relation to the concepts of uncertainty and objective probability. Then I describe the further problem of wavefunction monism, emphasized by Maudlin, and make a suggestion as to how it might be resolved.
The measurement problem remains one of the most profound puzzles in the foundation of quantum mechanics. It contains two distinct aspects: the collapse of the wavefunction and the origin of probabilities. While Everettian Quantum Mechanics (EQM) and the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) work around the collapse aspect, by positing that the universe branches through pure unitary evolution, it leaves unresolved the question of why measurement outcomes occur with frequencies given by the Born Rule. This paper explores a recent derivation of the Born Rule by Carroll and Sebens based on principles of Self-Locating Uncertainty (SLU) and the Epistemic Separability Principle (ESP). By examining this framework in detail, beginning with an equal amplitude case and extending to an unequal amplitude case, we show how these principles account for the probabilities given by the Born Rule, hence showing that SLU and the ESP, within the scope of EQM, offer a solution to the measurement problem. We further show the significance and implications of deriving the Born Rule and highlight the relevance of the measurement problem to more recent developments like quantum gravity.
We discuss the proposal by Sebens and Carroll to derive the Born rule in Everettian quantum mechanics from a principle they call ‘ESP-QM’. We argue that the proposal fails: ESP-QM is not, as Sebens and Carroll argue, a ‘less general version’ of an independently plausible principle, ESP, and can only be motivated by the empirical success of quantum mechanics, including use of the Born rule. Therefore, ESP-QM cannot have the status of a meta-theoretical principle of reasoning and provides no viable basis for deriving the Born rule.
Everettian quantum mechanics is often said to lack coherent probability because every possible measurement result occurs. If all of them exist globally, what is probability supposed to be a probability of? This paper defends an axiomatic answer: normalized Born measure is postulated as objective probability over the records borne by an observer's future continuations. Collapse interpretations likewise postulate the Born probabilities, but instead assign them to possible global outcomes. Neither theory derives the probabilities from its ontology. The contribution is an explicit record-level probability model that separates probabilities for future local records from certainty about their global existence. I use this model to answer objections to the axiomatic approach and argue that neither global selection nor a further theory of personal persistence is required. At the level of recorded results, the Everettian law supports the same predictions and empirical inferences as the collapse law, despite the theories' different ontologies.