Abstract Recent accounts of probability in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics are vulnerable due to their dependence on probability theory per se. For this reason, the many worlds interpretation continues to suffer from the incoherence and quantitative problems. After discussing various theories of probability, I discuss the incoherence problem and argue that self-locating probabilities centered in time-extended worlds can solve it. I then discuss and refute various solutions to the quantitative problem. I argue that the only tenable way to ground these self-locating probabilities is to identify the mathematical form of the Born rule as a generic pattern in a time-extended wavefunction, and to distribute degrees of belief over the region of wavefunction occupied by this pattern. I then outline a time-symmetric version of quantum mechanics - the Fixed Point Formulation - which, interpreted within a time-symmetric Everettian framework, can provide the foundation for a theory of quantum probability.
Abstract Recent accounts of probability in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics are vulnerable due to their dependence on probability theory per se. For this reason, the many worlds interpretation continues to suffer from the incoherence and quantitative problems. After discussing various theories of probability, I discuss the incoherence problem and argue that self-locating probabilities centered in time-extended worlds can solve it. I then discuss and refute various solutions to the quantitative problem. I argue that the only tenable way to ground these self-locating probabilities is to identify the mathematical form of the Born rule as a generic pattern in a time-extended wavefunction, and to distribute degrees of belief over the region of wavefunction occupied by this pattern. I then outline a time-symmetric version of quantum mechanics - the Fixed Point Formulation - which, interpreted within a time-symmetric Everettian framework, can provide the foundation for a theory of quantum probability.
A group of philosophers and physicists at Oxford have recently crafted, in light of developments in the theory of decoherence, a new version of the Everett or Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. I will focus on the work of David Wallace, who identifies the quasi-classical domains making up the various “worlds” or “branches” of the interpretation with macroscopic patterns that are functionally realized (to an approximate degree good enough for practical purposes) by the quantum wavefunction of the universe. I argue that Wallace’s reliance on Savage’s pragmatic account of probability fails, due to the unreasonableness of Savage’s Sure Thing Principle in a many-worlds setting. I also argue that Wallace’s program is vulnerable to a version of Putnam’s model-theoretic indeterminacy argument, with the result that almost any conceivable macroscopic “world” is in fact realized by that function and so is (by Wallace’s light) as real as our own. I offer a hylomorphic revision of the many-worlds model, the “traveling forms” interpretation of Alexander Pruss, and I argue that this revision solves both the indeterminacy problem and the problem of interpreting quantum probabilities.
Quantum Mechanics notoriously faces a measurement problem, the problem that the unitary time evolution, encoded in its dynamical equations, together with the kinematical structure of the theory generally implies the non-existence \nof definite measurement outcomes. There have been multiple suggestions to solve this problem, among them the so called many worlds interpretation that originated with the work of Hugh Everett III. According to it, the quantum state and time evolution fully and accurately describe nature as it is, implying that under certain conditions multiple measurement outcomes that are seemingly mutually exclusive can be realized at the same time – but as different 'worlds' contained in a global, quantum mechanical structure, sometimes referred to as 'the multiverse'. The many worlds interpretation has, however, been confronted with serious difficulties over the course of its development, some of which were solved by the advent of decoherence theory. The present thesis critically investi- \ngates the state of play on a key remaining problem of the many worlds interpretation, the problem of the meaning and quantification of probabilities in a quantum multiverse. Recent attempts of deriving the pivotal statistical ingredient of quantum mechanics, Born’s rule, from either principles of decision theory or from quantum mechanics alone, supplemented with a few general premises about \nprobability are analyzed and their premises are scrutinized. It will be argued that, though both approaches yield promising results, they both ultimately fail \nto clearly establish the validity of Born’s rule in the context of the many worlds interpretation. It is hence suggested that further research on this problem is indicated.
A non-relativistic quantum mechanical theory is proposed that describes the universe as a continuum of worlds whose mutual interference gives rise to quantum phenomena. A logical framework is introduced to properly deal with propositions about objects in a multiplicity of worlds. In this logical framework, the continuum of worlds is treated in analogy to the continuum of time points; both “time” and “world” are considered as mutually independent modes of existence. The theory combines elements of Bohmian mechanics and of Everett’s many-worlds interpretation; it has a clear ontology and a set of precisely defined postulates from where the predictions of standard quantum mechanics can be derived. Probability as given by the Born rule emerges as a consequence of insufficient knowledge of observers about which world it is that they live in. The theory describes a continuum of worlds rather than a single world or a discrete set of worlds, so it is similar in spirit to many-worlds interpretations based on Everett’s approach, without being actually reducible to these. In particular, there is no splitting of worlds, which is a typical feature of Everett-type theories. Altogether, the theory explains (1) the subjective occurrence of probabilities, (2) their quantitative value as given by the Born rule, and (3) the apparently random “collapse of the wavefunction” caused by the measurement, while still being an objectively deterministic theory.
There appear to be multiple mathematically and physically distinct theories that successfully reproduce the empirical predictions of quantum mechanics, so-called "interpretations" of quantum mechanics. This dissertation uses the tools of formal epistemology (prominently, the concept of self-locating uncertainty) to investigate which of the theories that have been put forward really are empirically adequate and what alternatives can be devised. The first chapter introduces a novel theory that incorporates aspects of two well-developed alternatives, Bohmian mechanics and the many-worlds interpretation. The quantum wave function can be represented as a field on configuration space, the space of possible ways particles can be arranged. According to Bohmian mechanics a single point in this space is special; it represents the way all of the particles actually are arranged. The newly introduced theory holds that many of the points in configuration space are special; for each, there is a world in which particles are arranged that way. In general, there will be multiple worlds that are so similar that an agent cannot tell directly from experience which they are in; self-locating uncertainty is unavoidable. The next chapter argues for the empirical adequacy of the many-worlds interpretation. In this version of quantum mechanics, processes like quantum measurements cause agents to split into multiple copies and enter periods of self-locating uncertainty. An epistemic principle demarcating which facts about the world one's credences might reasonably depend on (only facts about what's happening around here) is used to derive probabilistic predictions from the many-worlds interpretation. In the third chapter self-locating uncertainty is employed in evaluating another version of quantum mechanics, Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber theory. In this theory, random collapse events prevent our world from splitting into many. If the collapse events are rare, this prevention fails. Other worlds have time to form but most are short-lived. Our survival provides evidence against that kind of theory. The final chapter is an original introduction to relativistic quantum field theory which lays groundwork for evaluating the prospects of extending various interpretations of quantum mechanics to this more sophisticated theory.
Everett's interpretation is best known under the name "many worlds", a name Everett never used in his published writings and which has concentrated the criticism directed at it: how many worlds are there? when do they split? what can probability mean if everything happens? We argue that these questions target the popularization of the theory rather than the theory itself, and that the last of them can now be retired on a precise ground. The probability problem divides into a quantitative question (why the Born weights?) and a question of meaning (what is there to be uncertain about?). The quantitative question is closed by a theorem, T*: the Born rule is the unique weighting of alternatives that is independent of the chosen grain of description, convergent among observers sharing the same records, and stable under branching. T* is established in a companion article by reduction to two published theorems, Gleason (1957) and Short (2023); non-contextuality, the traditionally contested premise of Gleason-type arguments, is derived there from grain coherence rather than postulated; convergence turns out to be a corollary; and the central theorem is verified end to end in Lean 4 with Mathlib, in full generality, with Gleason's theorem as the single declared axiom. The question of meaning is answered by internality: an observer who is part of the state is, by theorem, ignorant of their own location in it, and self-locates on accessible records. What then remains is one posited principle, the bridge between an objective measure and rational expectation, and we show step by step that it is the same principle a deterministic coin already exacts from classical physics. Everett's interpretation, properly formulated, therefore has no special problem of probability: it carries the normative residue that all probabilistic physics carries, and one postulate fewer, since the Born measure is derived and nothing collapses.
The Everett (or relative-state, or many-worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics has come under fire for inadequately dealing with the Born rule (the formula for calculating quantum probabilities). Numerous attempts have been made to derive this rule from the perspective of observers within the quantum wavefunction. These are not really analytic proofs, but are rather attempts to derive the Born rule as a synthetic a priori necessity, given the nature of human observers (a fact not fully appreciated even by all of those who have attempted such proofs). I show why existing attempts are unsuccessful or only partly successful, and postulate that Solomonoff's algorithmic approach to the interpretation of probability theory could clarify the problems with these approaches. The Sleeping Beauty probability puzzle is used as a springboard from which to deduce an objectivist, yet synthetic a priori framework for quantum probabilities, that properly frames the role of self-location and self-selection (anthropic) principles in probability theory. I call this framework "algorithmic synthetic unity" (or ASU). I offer no new formal proof of the Born rule, largely because I feel that existing proofs (particularly that of Gleason) are already adequate, and as close to being a formal proof as one should expect or want. Gleason's one unjustified assumption--known as noncontextuality--is, I will argue, completely benign when considered within the algorithmic framework that I propose. I will also argue that, to the extent the Born rule can be derived within ASU, there is no reason to suppose that we could not also derive all the other fundamental postulates of quantum theory, as well. There is nothing special here about the Born rule, and I suggest that a completely successful Born rule proof might only be possible once all the other postulates become part of the derivation. As a start towards this end, I show how we can already derive the essential content of the fundamental postulates of quantum mechanics, at least in outline, and especially if we allow some educated and well-motivated guesswork along the way. The result is some steps towards a coherent and consistent algorithmic interpretation of quantum mechanics.