A distinction is made between the ‘‘popular many-worlds interpretation’’ and Everett’s ‘‘relative state’’ formulation of quantum mechanics. This distinction is claimed to be relevant to arguments raised against both schemes.
Abstract What does realism about the quantum state imply? What follows when quantum theory is applied without restriction, if need be, to the whole universe? These are the questions which are debated in this book. All the chapters start from the point of realism, and based on the need, or the aspiration, for a theory that unites micro- and macroworlds, at least in principle. But the further claim argued by some is that if you allow the Schrödinger equation unrestricted application, supposing the quantum state to be something physically real, then this universe is one of countlessly many others, constantly branching in time, all of which are real. The result is the many worlds theory, also known as the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics. The contrary claim sees this picture of many worlds as in no sense inherent in quantum mechanics, even when the latter is allowed unrestricted scope and even given that the quantum state itself is something physically real. For this picture of branching worlds fails to make physical sense, let alone common sense, even on its own terms. The status of these worlds, what they are made of, is never adequately explained. Ordinary ideas about time and identity over time become hopelessly compromised. The concept of probability itself is brought into question. This picture of many branching worlds is inchoate, it is a vision, an error. There are realist alternatives to many worlds, some even that preserve the Schrödinger equation unchanged. Twenty chapters, accompanied by commentaries and discussions, examine these claims and counterclaims in depth. They focus first on the question of ontology, the existence of worlds, second on the interpretation of probability, and third on alternatives or additions to many worlds. The introduction offers a helpful guide to the arguments for the Everett interpretation, particularly as they have been formulated in the last two decades.
The Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics - better known as the Many-Worlds Theory - has had a rather uneven reception. Mainstream philosophers have scarcely heard of it, save as science fiction. In philosophy of physics it is well known but has historically been fairly widely rejected. Among physicists (at least, among those concerned with the interpretation of quantum mechanics in the first place), it is taken very seriously indeed, arguably tied for first place in popularity with more traditional operationalist views of quantum mechanics. In this article, I provide a fairly short (15,000 words) and self-contained introduction to the Everett interpretation as it is currently understood. I use little technical machinery, although I do assume the reader has encountered the measurement problem already (at about the level of the well-known discussions by Penrose or Albert).
Recent years have seen a good deal of work done on one of the most mind blowing and conceptually radical views in quantum mechanics, namely the ‘many worlds’ interpretation of quantum mechanics. Many worlds was first proposed by Hugh Everett III in his long Ph.D. dissertation, which only some years later, and after significant shortening, came to be published as the ‘Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics’ (Everett 1957). To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first publication of Everett's ideas, two conferences were held at Oxford University and the Perimeter Institute, which brought together some of the most active researchers in the field. The works presented in these two conferences have now been compiled in the volume Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory and Reality, edited by Simon Saunders, Jonathan Barrett, Adrian Kent and David Wallace.1 This is then a comprehensive collection of papers – 23 papers altogether – where the reader will find virtually anything that can be said about the many worlds interpretation today.
Everett ( 1957a , b , 1973 ) relative-state formulation of quantum mechanics has often been taken to involve a metaphysical commitment to the existence of many splitting worlds each containing physical copies of observers and the objects they observe. While there was earlier talk of splitting worlds in connection with Everett, this is largely due to DeWitt’s (Phys Today 23:30–35, 1970 ) popular presentation of the theory. While the thought of splitting worlds or parallel universes has captured the popular imagination, Everett himself favored the language of elements, branches, or relative states in describing his theory. The result is that there is no mention of splitting worlds or parallel universes in any of Everett’s published work. Everett, however, did write of splitting observers and was willing to adopt the language of many worlds in conversation with people who were themselves using such language. While there is evidence that Everett was not entirely comfortable with talk of many worlds, it does not seem to have mattered much to him what language one used to describe pure wave mechanics. This was in part a result of Everett’s empirical understanding of the cognitive status of his theory.
Byrne and Hall (1999) criticized the argument of Chalmers (1996) in favor of the Everett-style interpretation. They claimed to show ``the deep and underappreciated flaw in ANY Everett-style interpretation''. I will argue that it is possible to interpret Chalmers's writing in such a way that most of the criticism by Byrne and Hall does not apply. In any case their general criticism of the many-worlds interpretation is unfounded. The recent recognition that the Everett-style interpretations are good (if not the best) interpretations of quantum mechanics has, therefore, not been negated.