The interpretation of quantum mechanics due to Everett (1957) postulates the existence of many worlds. The analysis of modality due to Lewis (1986) is supported by the postulation of the existence of many worlds. Accordingly, if we take the modally relevant plurality of worlds (or multiverse) to be the one that this bit of physics gives us, we might obtain a unified and comprehensive naturalistic cosmology: a theory which accounts for all modal truth in terms of being, and which carries the epistemological authority of natural science. Thus the quantum modal realism (QMR) of Alastair Wilson in The Nature of Contingency. This is a thoroughly stimulating and clearly written work that argues for a genuinely big idea. Taking on both the philosophy of physics...
The interpretation of quantum mechanics due to Everett (1957) postulates the existence of many worlds. The analysis of modality due to Lewis (1986) is supported by the postulation of the existence of many worlds. Accordingly, if we take the modally relevant plurality of worlds (or multiverse) to be the one that this bit of physics gives us, we might obtain a unified and comprehensive naturalistic cosmology: a theory which accounts for all modal truth in terms of being, and which carries the epistemological authority of natural science. Thus the quantum modal realism (QMR) of Alastair Wilson in The Nature of Contingency. This is a thoroughly stimulating and clearly written work that argues for a genuinely big idea. Taking on both the philosophy of physics...
Contingency is everywhere, but what is it? This book defends a radical new theory of contingency as a physical phenomenon. Drawing on the many-worlds approach to quantum theory and on cutting-edge metaphysics and philosophy of science, it argues that quantum theories are best understood as telling us about the space of genuine possibilities rather than as telling us solely about actuality. When quantum physics is taken seriously in the way first proposed by Hugh Everett III, it provides the resources for a new systematic metaphysical framework encompassing possibility, necessity, actuality, chance, counterfactuals and a host of related modal notions. The framework is a modal realist one, in the tradition of David Lewis: all genuine possibilities are on a par, and the actual world is simply the one that we ourselves inhabit. It departs from Lewisian modal realism in that quantum possible worlds are not philosophical posits but scientific discoveries. Contingency and other modal notions have often been seen as beyond the limits of science. Rationalist metaphysicians argue that the metaphysics of modality is strictly prior to any scientific investigation: metaphysics establishes which worlds are possible, and physics merely checks which of these worlds is actual. Naturalistic metaphysicians respond that science may discover new possibilities and new impossibilities. This book’s quantum theory of contingency takes naturalistic metaphysics one step further, allowing that science may discover what it is to be possible. As electromagnetism revealed the nature of light, as acoustics revealed the nature of sound, as statistical mechanics revealed the nature of heat, so quantum physics reveals the nature of contingency.
Abstract Contingency is everywhere, but what is it? This book defends a radical new theory of contingency as a physical phenomenon. Drawing on the many-worlds approach to quantum theory and on cutting-edge metaphysics and philosophy of science, it argues that quantum theories are best understood as telling us about the space of genuine possibilities rather than as telling us solely about actuality. When quantum physics is taken seriously in the way first proposed by Hugh Everett III, it provides the resources for a new systematic metaphysical framework encompassing possibility, necessity, actuality, chance, counterfactuals, and a host of related modal notions. The framework is a modal realist one, in the tradition of David Lewis: all genuine possibilities are on a par, and the actual world is simply the one that we ourselves inhabit. It departs from Lewisian modal realism in that quantum possible worlds are not philosophical posits but scientific discoveries. Contingency and other modal notions have often been seen as beyond the limits of science. Rationalist metaphysicians argue that the metaphysics of modality is strictly prior to any scientific investigation: metaphysics establishes which worlds are possible, and physics merely checks which of these worlds is actual. Naturalistic metaphysicians respond that science may discover new possibilities and new impossibilities. This book’s quantum theory of contingency takes naturalistic metaphysics one step further, allowing that science may discover what it is to be possible. As electromagnetism revealed the nature of light, as acoustics revealed the nature of sound, as statistical mechanics revealed the nature of heat, so quantum physics reveals the nature of contingency.
This article sits at a point of intersection between the philosophy of physics and the metaphysics of modality. There are clear similarities between Everettian quantum mechanics and various modal metaphysical theories, but there have hitherto been few attempts at exploring how the two topics relate. In this article, I build on a series of recent papers by Wilson ([2011], [2012], [2013]), who argues that Everettian quantum mechanics’ connections with traditional modal metaphysics are vital in defending it against objections. I show that Wilson’s preferred version of Everettian quantum mechanics has two problems. First, it is unable to account for the contingency of various intuitively contingent modal claims. Second, it fails to yield intuitive truth values on modal claims about the number of branches in a given Everettian multiverse. Since modal claims about branch number are instrumental in decision-theoretic solutions to Everettian quantum mechanics’ problem(s) with probability, this second problem has wider dialectical implications. I suggest amendments to the underlying metaphysics that overcome these problems. The result is a more robust version of Everettian quantum mechanics.
Recent work on probability in the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics yields a decision-theoretic derivation of David Lewis’ Principal Principle, and hence a general metaphysical theory of probability; part 1 is a discussion of this remarkable result. I defend the claim that the ‘subjective uncertainty’ principle is required for the derivation to succeed, arguing that it amounts to a theoretical identification of chance. In part 2, I generalize this account, and suggest that the Everett interpretation, in combination with a plausible view of natural laws, has the potential to provide a reductive theory of metaphysical modality. I defend the resulting naturalistic modal realism, and outline some of its implications for other parts of metaphysics.
Abstract: The classical architecture of physical science and analytic metaphysics has often been associated with deterministic necessitarianism, according to which a complete specification of antecedent conditions and governing laws uniquely determines subsequent physical states. The advent of quantum mechanics challenges this picture without thereby implying unconstrained modal chaos. This paper develops a tripartite modal framework comprising Strong PSR (S), Unconstrained Contingency (U), and Structured Contingency (W). Let P denote the broad domain of logically and mathematically formulable physical configurations, and A the subset physically realizable under the relevant nomological framework. Structured Contingency is defined as W⟺(∣A∣>1)∧(A⊊P). Using a dual-front methodology, the paper first draws deductive consequences from two empirically grounded premises: quantum openness (E1), represented by ∣A∣>1, and structural constraint (E2), represented by A⊊P. Together these yield the formal synthesis E1∧E2⊢W, while E1 independently excludes Strong PSR under the framework's specified modal interpretation. The paper then conducts a comparative abductive evaluation of W against Unconstrained Contingency, arguing that W provides superior descriptive adequacy and explanatory parsimony because it accommodates genuine physical plurality while preserving the objective structural regularities exhibited by quantum theory. The resulting Lemma of Structured Contingency is offered not as a new mathematical theorem, but as a formal synthesis of modal plurality and nomological constraint. The framework thus provides an analytically austere account of physical modality as simultaneously open and structurally bounded.
The purpose of this paper is to give an overview of modal realism and many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and compare the concepts of many worlds in those two theories. Main source for modal realism is David Lewis' book On the Plurality of Worlds (1986). For many worlds interpretation I rely on Bryce DeWitt and Lev Vaidman. First part of the paper concerns modal realism, second is about many worlds interpretation and third is the comparison of those two. Many worlds in modal realism and many worlds interpretation have the same phenomenology, but are different ontologically. The worlds of modal realism are causally and spatiotemporally separated and have always been, while the worlds of many worlds interpretation are part of a branching universe. That means they were the same world at some point in the past, even though they are equally separated, as the worlds of modal realism are, after the branching.