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

Anthropic Contingency

Alastair Wilson

Published Feb 11, 2020• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract Distinguish contingency in general from anthropic contingency. The former is what really could happen; the latter is what really could be observed to happen. Quantum histories which host no life cannot, as a matter of obvious necessity, be observed. This distinction generates an anthropic observation selection effect, which has been employed in response to the fine-tuning argument for the design hypothesis. This chapter argues that fine-tuning is a genuine phenomenon that cries out for explanation; that in one-world approaches to quantum theory a chancy determination of cosmological parameters would render the one universe we are in preposterously lucky; that no preposterous luck is required from the perspective of quantum modal realism; and that the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics turns out to have a significant evidential bearing on the design question.

DOI
10.1093/oso/9780198846215.003.0007

Related papers

Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory and Mesoscopic Anthropic Principle

Alexander Yu. Kamenshchik, Oleg V Teryaev

We suggest to combine the Anthropic Principle with Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory. Realizing the multiplicity of worlds it provides an opportunity of explanation of some important events which are assumed to be extremely improbable. The Mesoscopic Anthropic Principle suggested here is aimed to explain appearance of such events which are necessary for emergence of Life and Mind. It is complementary to Cosmological Anthropic Principle explaining the fine tuning of fundamental constants. We briefly discuss various possible applications of Mesoscopic Anthropic Principle including the Solar Eclipses and assembling of complex molecules. Besides, we address the problem of Time's Arrow in the framework of Many-World Interpretation. We suggest the recipe for disentangling of quantities defined by fundamental physical laws and by an anthropic selection.

arXiv:0705.2494•Old and New Concepts of Physics•Oct 1, 2008•3 citations

The Nature of Contingency

Alastair Wilson

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.

•Feb 11, 2020•93 citations

The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

Alastair Wilson

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.

•Feb 11, 2020•14 citations

Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory, Mesoscopic Anthropic Principle and Biological Evolution

Alexander Yu. Kamenshchik, Oleg V Teryaev

We suggest to combine the Anthropic Principle with the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory.Realizing the multiplicity of worlds it provides an opportunity of explanation of some important events which are assumed to be extremely improbable.The Mesoscopic Anthropic Principle suggested here is aimed to explain appearance of such events which are necessary for emergence of Life and Mind.It is complementary to the Cosmological Anthropic Principle explaining the fine tuning of fundamental constants.We briefly discuss various possible applications of the Mesoscopic Anthropic Principle including the Solar Eclipses and assembling of complex molecules.Besides, we address the problem of Time's Arrow in the framework of the Many-Worlds Interpretation.We suggest the recipe for disentangling of quantities defined by fundamental physical laws and by an anthropic selection.The main emphasis is made on the problem of the biological evolution.

arXiv:1302.5545•NeuroQuantology•Feb 22, 2013•6 citations

The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism, by Alastair Wilson

John Divers

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...

Mind•Jan 19, 2021•0 citations

Does the Actuality of Life Favor Many Actual Histories?

Jonathan Baxter

This essay develops a simple conditional argument for many-history ontologies from the fact that life exists. The question is not why our exact evolutionary sequence occurred, but why reality contains the broad class of life-bearing histories at all. If such histories are sufficiently rare, then a single-history ontology makes the existence of life surprising, while an ontology containing many histories can make it unsurprising. In the limiting case, life may be vanishingly unlikely in any one history while almost certain to occur somewhere if many histories are actualized. Everettian quantum mechanics is a natural candidate for this kind of ontology because its multiplicity is not introduced for anthropic purposes, but arises from taking universal unitary quantum mechanics seriously. The Fermi paradox is discussed as pressure against the claim that life is common within a single history.

arXiv:2608.23255•Aug 24, 2026•0 citations
Abstract Distinguish contingency in general from anthropic contingency. The former is what really could happen; the latter is what really could be observed to happen. Quantum histories which host no life cannot, as a matter of obvious necessity, be observed. This distinction generates an anthropic observation selection effect, which has been employed in response to the fine-tuning argument for the design hypothesis. This chapter argues that fine-tuning is a genuine phenomenon that cries out for explanation; that in one-world approaches to quantum theory a chancy determination of cosmological parameters would render the one universe we are in preposterously lucky; that no preposterous luck is required from the perspective of quantum modal realism; and that the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics turns out to have a significant evidential bearing on the design question.
We suggest to combine the Anthropic Principle with Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory. Realizing the multiplicity of worlds it provides an opportunity of explanation of some important events which are assumed to be extremely improbable. The Mesoscopic Anthropic Principle suggested here is aimed to explain appearance of such events which are necessary for emergence of Life and Mind. It is complementary to Cosmological Anthropic Principle explaining the fine tuning of fundamental constants. We briefly discuss various possible applications of Mesoscopic Anthropic Principle including the Solar Eclipses and assembling of complex molecules. Besides, we address the problem of Time's Arrow in the framework of Many-World Interpretation. We suggest the recipe for disentangling of quantities defined by fundamental physical laws and by an anthropic selection.
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.
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.
We suggest to combine the Anthropic Principle with the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory.Realizing the multiplicity of worlds it provides an opportunity of explanation of some important events which are assumed to be extremely improbable.The Mesoscopic Anthropic Principle suggested here is aimed to explain appearance of such events which are necessary for emergence of Life and Mind.It is complementary to the Cosmological Anthropic Principle explaining the fine tuning of fundamental constants.We briefly discuss various possible applications of the Mesoscopic Anthropic Principle including the Solar Eclipses and assembling of complex molecules.Besides, we address the problem of Time's Arrow in the framework of the Many-Worlds Interpretation.We suggest the recipe for disentangling of quantities defined by fundamental physical laws and by an anthropic selection.The main emphasis is made on the problem of the biological evolution.
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...
This essay develops a simple conditional argument for many-history ontologies from the fact that life exists. The question is not why our exact evolutionary sequence occurred, but why reality contains the broad class of life-bearing histories at all. If such histories are sufficiently rare, then a single-history ontology makes the existence of life surprising, while an ontology containing many histories can make it unsurprising. In the limiting case, life may be vanishingly unlikely in any one history while almost certain to occur somewhere if many histories are actualized. Everettian quantum mechanics is a natural candidate for this kind of ontology because its multiplicity is not introduced for anthropic purposes, but arises from taking universal unitary quantum mechanics seriously. The Fermi paradox is discussed as pressure against the claim that life is common within a single history.