I recently showed how objective Everettian probability can be defined over the records borne by an observer's later continuations, without unique actualization or additional premeasurement subjects \citep{Baxter2026}. Here I extend that model to all decoherent physical record states, including records that support no such continuation. The observer-indexed model is then a restriction of an exhaustive physical-record model.
I recently showed how objective Everettian probability can be defined over the records borne by an observer's later continuations, without unique actualization or additional premeasurement subjects \citep{Baxter2026}. Here I extend that model to all decoherent physical record states, including records that support no such continuation. The observer-indexed model is then a restriction of an exhaustive physical-record model.
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.
Paper B1 is a guardrail and bookkeeping working paper for complete-history-style candidate-history frameworks. It clarifies that selector language, where retained at all, should be treated only as legacy terminology for a possible model-relative closure/admissibility framing, not as a physical mechanism or within-world selection process. The paper separates five ledgers that are often conflated: candidate histories, closure/admissibility, probability or weighting structure, operational readout/record constraints, and diagnostic gates such as Born compatibility, no-signaling, and Bell-assumption bookkeeping. Its central formal point is that a closure condition C_closure may define an admissible set H_adm = {h in H_cand : C_closure(h)=1}, but this admissible set does not by itself define a probability law. B1 follows the reduced-history no-inference guardrail of Paper A and imports from D1 only the declared-access/readout/record discipline. It does not use D1 as evidence for a physical selector, closure law, probability principle, Born-rule derivation, Bell/no-signaling result, or experimental prediction. Decoherence, consistent histories, and Everettian branch language are discussed only to separate branch/record stability from admissibility, probability, and single-history actualization. The paper is not a physical model, not a replacement for quantum mechanics, not a Born-rule derivation, not a Bell/no-signaling solution, and not a prediction paper. It is a claim-control layer for later work.This is Paper B1 v0.3 in the Complete-History / Record-Capability working-paper sequence. It is a guardrail and bookkeeping paper only. It introduces no physical selector, no probability law, no Born-rule derivation, no Bell/no-signaling result, no quantum-mechanics replacement, and no experimental prediction. The uploaded source ZIP contains the LaTeX source for the working paper; SHA256SUMS.txt provides file-integrity hashes for the uploaded PDF and source archive.
I discuss the problems of probability and the future in the Everett-Wheeler understanding of quantum theory. To resolve these, I propose an understanding of probability arising from a form of temporal logic: the probability of a future-tense proposition is identified with its truth value in a many-valued and context-dependent logic. I construct a lattice of tensed propositions, with truth values in the interval [0,1], and derive logical properties of the truth values given by the usual quantum-mechanical formula for the probability of histories.
This conceptual and methodological quantum-foundations paper defines a finite constrained-record model on a causal poset. At a selected comparison event, specified record labels are compatible exactly when they admit an extension over that event's causal past. The paper proves an entailed-literal closure, restriction to earlier comparison events, structural invariance under constrained-system isomorphism, linear-extension independence, and an exact binary cycle-parity and assignment-count criterion. It also gives a terminating audit method for distinguishing compatibility, entailment, uniqueness, persistence, actualization, and the claimed invariance class.The result is deliberately bounded. Comparison-indexed compatibility may be defeated at a later comparison event. The finite construction does not supply outcome selection, probabilities, collapse dynamics, operational record semantics, Lorentz covariance, or a localized AQFT measurement instrument. A detailed non-transfer ledger identifies the additional structures required before finite order-theoretic consistency could support a claim in local quantum field measurement theory.This is a finite conceptual and methodological note, not a new physical theory or empirical prediction.