Abstract Adam Elga argues that in certain cases when an agent cannot tell which of many subjectively indistinguishable experiences she is currently having, she should assign equal credence to being in each. This chapter derives instances of that indifference principle from the Certainty-Loss Framework (CLF) proposed and defended in this book, then defends those instances against criticisms from Brian Weatherson. Next, the chapter applies CLF to cases involving personal fission or cloning. Finally, the chapter uses CLF to examine how agents should assign degrees of belief to the outcomes of various quantum experiments if the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is true. If the Everettian interpretation can make sense of nonextreme degrees of belief about quantum outcomes to begin with, then CLF provides plausible results about how those degrees of belief should update over time.
Abstract Adam Elga argues that in certain cases when an agent cannot tell which of many subjectively indistinguishable experiences she is currently having, she should assign equal credence to being in each. This chapter derives instances of that indifference principle from the Certainty-Loss Framework (CLF) proposed and defended in this book, then defends those instances against criticisms from Brian Weatherson. Next, the chapter applies CLF to cases involving personal fission or cloning. Finally, the chapter uses CLF to examine how agents should assign degrees of belief to the outcomes of various quantum experiments if the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is true. If the Everettian interpretation can make sense of nonextreme degrees of belief about quantum outcomes to begin with, then CLF provides plausible results about how those degrees of belief should update over time.
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.
Abstract Much of the evidence for quantum mechanics is statistical in nature. Relative frequency data summarizing the results of repeated experiments is compared to probabilities calculated from the theory; close agreement between the observed relative frequencies and calculated probabilities is taken as evidence in favour of the theory. The Everett interpretation, if it is to be a candidate for serious consideration, must be capable of doing justice to this sort of reasoning. Since, on the Everett interpretation, all outcomes with non-zero amplitude are actualized on different branches, it is not obvious that sense can be made of ascribing probabilities to outcomes of experiments, and this poses a prima facie problem for statistical inference. It is incumbent on the Everettian either to make sense of ascribing probabilities to outcomes of experiments in the Everett interpretation, or to find a substitute on which the usual statistical analysis of experimental results continues to count as evidence for quantum mechanics, and, since it is the very evidence for quantum mechanics that is at stake, this must be done in a way that does not presuppose the correctness of Everettian quantum mechanics. This requires an account of theory confirmation that applies to branching-universe theories but does not presuppose the correctness of any such theory. This chapter supplies and defends such an account. The account has the consequence that statistical evidence can confirm a branching-universe theory such as Everettian quantum mechanics in the same way in which it can confirm a non-branching probabilistic theory.
Everettian quantum mechanics (EQM) results in ‘multiple, emergent, branching quasi-classical realities’ (Wallace [2012]). The possible outcomes of measurement as per ‘orthodox’ quantum mechanics are, in EQM, all instantiated. Given this metaphysics, Everettians face the ‘probability problem’—how to make sense of probabilities and recover the Born rule. To solve the probability problem, Wallace, following Deutsch ([1999]), has derived a quantum representation theorem. I argue that Wallace’s solution to the probability problem is unsuccessful, as follows. First, I examine one of the axioms of rationality used to derive the theorem, ‘branching indifference’ (BI). I argue that Wallace is not successful in showing that BI is rational. While I think it is correct to put the burden of proof on Wallace to motivate BI as an axiom of rationality, it does not follow from his failing to do so that BI is not rational. Thus, second, I show that there is an alternative strategy for setting one’s credences in the face of branching which is rational and which violates BI. This is ‘branch counting’ (BC). Wallace is aware of BC and has proffered various arguments against it. However, third, I argue that Wallace’s arguments against BC are unpersuasive. I conclude that the probability problem in EQM persists. 1 Introduction 2 Branching Indifference 2.1 The positive argument for branching indifference 2.2 The negative argument for branching indifference 2.3 Branching indifference section summary 3 Branch Counting 3.1 Branch counting is rational under the subjective-uncertainty viewpoint 3.2 Branch counting is rational under the objective-determinism viewpoint 3.3 Branch counting section summary 4 Number of Branches 4.1 Veracity of the framework 4.2 No such thing as the number of branches 4.2.1 The number of branches is indeterminate 4.2.2 The number of branches is indeterminable 4.3 Rationality and weight 5 Conclusion
QBism is currently one of the most widely discussed 'subjective' interpretations of quantum mechanics. Its key move is to say that quantum probabilities are personalist Bayesian probabilities and that the quantum state represents subjective degrees of belief. Even probability-one predictions are considered subjective assignments expressing the agent's highest possible degree of certainty about what they will experience next. For most philosophers and physicists this means that QBism is simply too subjective. Even those who agree with QBism that the wave function should not be reified and that we should look for alternatives to standard Psi-ontic interpretations often argue that QBism must be abandoned because it detaches science from objectivity. The problem is that from the QBist perspective it is hard to see how objectivity could enter science. In this paper, I introduce and motivate an interpretation of quantum mechanics that takes QBism as a starting point, is consistent with all its virtues, but allows objectivity to enter from the get-go. This is the view that quantum probabilities should be understood as objective degrees of epistemic justification.
Abstract In the decision-theoretic approach to the many worlds interpretation due to Deutsch and Wallace, probabilities are taken to be Bayesian degrees of belief. Their connection to the quantum mechanical wavefunction, derived from a set of decision-theoretic axioms, can be regarded as a quantum version of Lewis's principal principle. This chapter shows that applying the principal principle in quantum mechanics is problematical because it is impossible to give precise criteria for what constitutes a repeated quantum-mechanical trial. This difficulty is resolved in a full quantum Bayesian theory where quantum states, as well as probabilities, are interpreted as expressing an agent's degrees of belief, rather than corresponding to objective properties of physical systems. A similar resolution exists in the many worlds interpretation; this resolution, however, raises a new question for the latter.
David Wallace has given a decision-theoretic argument for the Born Rule in the context of Everettian quantum mechanics (EQM). This approach promises to resolve some long-standing problems with probability in EQM, but it has faced plenty of resistance. One kind of objection (the ‘incoherence problem’) charges that the requisite notion of decision-theoretic uncertainty is unavailable in the Everettian picture, so that the argument cannot gain any traction; another kind of objection grants the proof’s applicability and targets the premises. In this article I propose some novel principles connecting the physics of EQM with the metaphysics of modality, and argue that in the resulting framework the incoherence problem does not arise. These principles also help to justify one of the most controversial premises of Wallace’s argument, ‘branching indifference’. Absent any a priori reason to align the metaphysics with the physics in some other way, the proposed principles can be adopted on grounds of theoretical utility. The upshot is that Everettians can, after all, make clear sense of objective probability. 1 Introduction 2 Setup 3 Individualism versus Collectivism 4 The Ingredients of Indexicalism 5 Indexicalism and Incoherence 5.1 The trivialization problem 5.2 The uncertainty problem 6 Indexicalism and Branching Indifference 6.1 Introducing branching indifference 6.2 The pragmatic defence of branching indifference 6.3 The non-existence defence of branching indifference 6.4 The indexicalist defence of branching indifference 7 Conclusion