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

Philosophy Compass

Probability in the Everett Interpretation

Hilary Greaves

Published Dec 21, 2006• 95 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract The Everett (many‐worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics faces a prima facie problem concerning quantum probabilities. Research in this area has been fast‐paced over the last few years, following a controversial suggestion by David Deutsch that decision theory can solve the problem. This article provides a non‐technical introduction to the decision‐theoretic program, and a sketch of the current state of the debate.

DOI
10.1111/j.1747-9991.2006.00054.x

Related papers

Quantum Probability and Decision Theory, Revisited

David Wallace

An extended analysis is given of the program, originally suggested by Deutsch, of solving the probability problem in the Everett interpretation by means of decision theory. Deutsch's own proof is discussed, and alternatives are presented which are based upon different decision theories and upon Gleason's Theorem. It is argued that decision theory gives Everettians most or all of what they need from `probability'. Some consequences of (Everettian) quantum mechanics for decision theory itself are also discussed.

arXiv:quant-ph/0211104•Nov 18, 2002•35 citations

Probability in Quantum Mechanics: The Everett Interpretation and the Decision-Theoretic Program

Meng Shuen Chua

The Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is an increasingly popular alternative to the traditional Copenhagen interpretation, but there are a few major issues that prevent the widespread adoption. One of these issues is the origin of probabilities in the Everett interpretation, which this thesis will attempt to survey. The most successful resolution of the probability problem thus far is the decision-theoretic program, which attempts to frame probabilities as outcomes of rational decision making. This marks a departure from orthodox interpretations of probabilities in the physical sciences, where probabilities are thought to be objective, stemming from symmetry considerations. This thesis will attempt to offer evaluations on the decision-theoretic program.

•Jan 1, 2015•0 citations

The Everett Interpretation

David Wallace

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).

Oxford University Press eBooks•Feb 5, 2013•22 citations

Decision Theory is a Red Herring for the Many Worlds Interpretation

Jacques Mallah

There have been many attempts over the years to derive the Born Rule from the wave equation since Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation was proposed; however, none of these have been satisfactory as shown when critics pointed out loopholes and unsupported assumptions. In this paper the case is made that the currently fashionable decision-theoretic approach founded by David Deutsch and explicated by David Wallace is likewise unsatisfactory. A more fundamental computationalist approach is advocated.

arXiv:0808.2415•Aug 18, 2008•3 citations

The Many Worlds Interpretation

Jonathan Allday

The hidden variable theories are, more cumbersome and artificial—while the Copenhagen interpretation is hopelessly incomplete because of its a priori reliance on classical physics, as well as a philosophic monstrosity with a “reality” concept for the macroscopic world and denial of the same for microcosm. In recent work on the Everett (Many-Worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics, it has increasingly been recognized that any version of the interpretation worth defending will be one in which the basic formalism of quantum mechanics is left unchanged. Properties such as the interpretation of wave-function as describing a multiverse of branching worlds, or the ascription of probabilities to the branching events, must be emergent from the unitary quantum mechanics rather than added explicitly to the mathematics. Deutsch’s strategy was to introduce a few assumptions from decision theory into the Everett interpretation and then to show how they work with quantum theory to create a natural value measure that is the same as the expectation value.

CRC Press eBooks•Sep 21, 2022•1 citation

Epistemology Quantized: circumstances in which we should come to believe in the Everett interpretation

David Wallace

I consider exactly what is involved in a solution to the probability problem of the Everett interpretation, in the light of recent work on applying considerations from decision theory to that problem. I suggest an overall framework for understanding probability in a physical theory, and conclude that this framework, when applied to the Everett interpretation, yields the result that that interpretation satisfactorily solves the measurement problem. 1. Introduction 2. What is probability? 2.1Objective probability and the Principal Principle 2.2Three ways of satisfying the functional definition 2.3Cautious functionalism 2.4Is the functional definition complete? 3. The Everett interpretation and subjective uncertainty 3.1Interpreting quantum mechanics 3.2The need for subjective uncertainty 3.3Saunders' argument for subjective uncertainty 3.4Objections to Saunders' argument 3.5Subjective uncertainty again: arguments from interpretative charity 3.6Quantum weights and the functional definition of probability 4. Rejecting subjective uncertainty 4.1The fission program 4.2Against the fission program 5. Justifying the axioms of decision theory 5.1The primitive status of the decision-theoretic axioms 5.2Holistic scepticism 5.3The role of an explanation of decision theory 6. Conclusion

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Dec 1, 2006•105 citations
Abstract The Everett (many‐worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics faces a prima facie problem concerning quantum probabilities. Research in this area has been fast‐paced over the last few years, following a controversial suggestion by David Deutsch that decision theory can solve the problem. This article provides a non‐technical introduction to the decision‐theoretic program, and a sketch of the current state of the debate.
An extended analysis is given of the program, originally suggested by Deutsch, of solving the probability problem in the Everett interpretation by means of decision theory. Deutsch's own proof is discussed, and alternatives are presented which are based upon different decision theories and upon Gleason's Theorem. It is argued that decision theory gives Everettians most or all of what they need from `probability'. Some consequences of (Everettian) quantum mechanics for decision theory itself are also discussed.
The Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is an increasingly popular alternative to the traditional Copenhagen interpretation, but there are a few major issues that prevent the widespread adoption. One of these issues is the origin of probabilities in the Everett interpretation, which this thesis will attempt to survey. The most successful resolution of the probability problem thus far is the decision-theoretic program, which attempts to frame probabilities as outcomes of rational decision making. This marks a departure from orthodox interpretations of probabilities in the physical sciences, where probabilities are thought to be objective, stemming from symmetry considerations. This thesis will attempt to offer evaluations on the decision-theoretic program.
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).
There have been many attempts over the years to derive the Born Rule from the wave equation since Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation was proposed; however, none of these have been satisfactory as shown when critics pointed out loopholes and unsupported assumptions. In this paper the case is made that the currently fashionable decision-theoretic approach founded by David Deutsch and explicated by David Wallace is likewise unsatisfactory. A more fundamental computationalist approach is advocated.
The hidden variable theories are, more cumbersome and artificial—while the Copenhagen interpretation is hopelessly incomplete because of its a priori reliance on classical physics, as well as a philosophic monstrosity with a “reality” concept for the macroscopic world and denial of the same for microcosm. In recent work on the Everett (Many-Worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics, it has increasingly been recognized that any version of the interpretation worth defending will be one in which the basic formalism of quantum mechanics is left unchanged. Properties such as the interpretation of wave-function as describing a multiverse of branching worlds, or the ascription of probabilities to the branching events, must be emergent from the unitary quantum mechanics rather than added explicitly to the mathematics. Deutsch’s strategy was to introduce a few assumptions from decision theory into the Everett interpretation and then to show how they work with quantum theory to create a natural value measure that is the same as the expectation value.
I consider exactly what is involved in a solution to the probability problem of the Everett interpretation, in the light of recent work on applying considerations from decision theory to that problem. I suggest an overall framework for understanding probability in a physical theory, and conclude that this framework, when applied to the Everett interpretation, yields the result that that interpretation satisfactorily solves the measurement problem. 1. Introduction 2. What is probability? 2.1Objective probability and the Principal Principle 2.2Three ways of satisfying the functional definition 2.3Cautious functionalism 2.4Is the functional definition complete? 3. The Everett interpretation and subjective uncertainty 3.1Interpreting quantum mechanics 3.2The need for subjective uncertainty 3.3Saunders' argument for subjective uncertainty 3.4Objections to Saunders' argument 3.5Subjective uncertainty again: arguments from interpretative charity 3.6Quantum weights and the functional definition of probability 4. Rejecting subjective uncertainty 4.1The fission program 4.2Against the fission program 5. Justifying the axioms of decision theory 5.1The primitive status of the decision-theoretic axioms 5.2Holistic scepticism 5.3The role of an explanation of decision theory 6. Conclusion