A longstanding issue in the Everettian (Many-Worlds) interpretation is to justify and make sense of the Born rule that underlies the statistical predictions of standard quantum mechanics. The paper offers a reappraisal of Everett’s original account in light of the recent literature on the concept of typicality. It argues that Everett’s derivation of the Born rule is sound and, in a certain sense, even an optimal result, and defends it against the charge of circularity. The conclusion is that Everett’s typicality argument can successfully ground post-factum explanations of Born statistics, while questions remain about the predictive power of the Many-Worlds interpretation.
A longstanding issue in the Everettian (Many-Worlds) interpretation is to justify and make sense of the Born rule that underlies the statistical predictions of standard quantum mechanics. The paper offers a reappraisal of Everett’s original account in light of the recent literature on the concept of typicality. It argues that Everett’s derivation of the Born rule is sound and, in a certain sense, even an optimal result, and defends it against the charge of circularity. The conclusion is that Everett’s typicality argument can successfully ground post-factum explanations of Born statistics, while questions remain about the predictive power of the Many-Worlds interpretation.
This paper analyses an attempt to reintroduce the probabilistic predictions of quantum mechanics into the Everett interpretation. An overview of the measurement problem and the Everett interpretation are first given, with particular attention paid to the issue of probability within a deterministic theory. An argument is put forth that observers in an Everettian multiverse generically experience a period of post-measurement uncertainty in regards to their location. It is further argued that this uncertainty allows pre-measurement to observers to act as if they are uncertain about future outcomes. This is then the justification for attaching probabilities to the squared moduli of the wave function. It is also noted that there is an assumption of typicality present in discussions of probability within Everett and some arguments to justify this assumption are considered.
A non-relativistic quantum mechanical theory is proposed that combines elements of Bohmian mechanics and of Everett's "many-worlds" interpretation. The resulting theory has the advantage of resolving known issues of both theories, as well as those of standard quantum mechanics. It has a clear ontology and a set of precisely defined postulates from where the predictions of standard quantum mechanics can be derived. Most importantly, the Born rule can be derived by straightforward application of the Laplacian rule, without reliance on a "quantum equilibrium hypothesis" that is crucial for Bohmian mechanics, and without reliance on a "branch weight" that is crucial for Everett-type theories. The theory describes a continuum of worlds rather than a single world or a discrete set of worlds, so it is similar in spirit to many-worlds interpretations based on Everett's approach, without being actually reducible to these. In particular, there is no "splitting of worlds", which is a typical feature of Everett-type theories. Altogether, the theory explains 1) the subjective occurrence of probabilities, 2) their quantitative value as given by the Born rule, 3) the identification of observables as self-adjoint operators on Hilbert space, and 4) the apparently random "collapse of the wavefunction" caused by the measurement, while still being an objectively deterministic theory.
Everettian quantum mechanics tells us that the fundamental dynamics of the universe are deterministic. So what are the `probabilities' that the Born rule describes? One popular answer has been to treat these probabilities as rational credences. A recent alternative, Isaac Wilhelm's centered Everett Interpretation (CEI), takes the Born probabilities to be centered chances: the objective chances that some centered propositions are true. Thus, the CEI challenges the `orthodox assumption’ that fundamental physical laws concern only uncentered facts. I provide three arguments against the centered Everett Interpretation. First, I argue that the CEI is in apparent tension with a significant motivation for adopting Everettian quantum mechanics: rejecting the attribution of special significance to observers or agents in fundamental physics. I suggest the CEI can avoid this tension, but only at the cost of sacrificing its central claim that there are objective chances in an Everettian multiverse. My second argument concerns the CEI’s claim that the centered Born rule is a fundamental physical law. I provide two plausible notions of fundamentality for physical laws, and I argue that the centered Born rule satisfies neither. My final argument is that the CEI’s branch-relative laws cannot explain or constrain an agent’s rational credences in the way that the CEI claims.
The Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is, inter alia, an interpretation of objective probability: an account of what probability really is. Everett called his work “wave mechanics without probability” for good reason: it provides a non-chancy base level of categorical properties and relations. The objection may concern justification rather than understanding, particularly if decoherence theory is used to derive the Born rule. The branch-counting rule makes nonsense of quantum mechanics but it appears to be suggested by the picture of branching. Branch counting is hardly a rival to the branch-weight rule as an interpretation of branching structure, if it brings that branching structure crashing down. Denizens of anomalous branches, or of anomalous stretches of history in one-world theories, will be misled by the observed statistics of measurements.
Everett's interpretation is best known under the name "many worlds", a name Everett never used in his published writings and which has concentrated the criticism directed at it: how many worlds are there? when do they split? what can probability mean if everything happens? We argue that these questions target the popularization of the theory rather than the theory itself, and that the last of them can now be retired on a precise ground. The probability problem divides into a quantitative question (why the Born weights?) and a question of meaning (what is there to be uncertain about?). The quantitative question is closed by a theorem, T*: the Born rule is the unique weighting of alternatives that is independent of the chosen grain of description, convergent among observers sharing the same records, and stable under branching. T* is established in a companion article by reduction to two published theorems, Gleason (1957) and Short (2023); non-contextuality, the traditionally contested premise of Gleason-type arguments, is derived there from grain coherence rather than postulated; convergence turns out to be a corollary; and the central theorem is verified end to end in Lean 4 with Mathlib, in full generality, with Gleason's theorem as the single declared axiom. The question of meaning is answered by internality: an observer who is part of the state is, by theorem, ignorant of their own location in it, and self-locates on accessible records. What then remains is one posited principle, the bridge between an objective measure and rational expectation, and we show step by step that it is the same principle a deterministic coin already exacts from classical physics. Everett's interpretation, properly formulated, therefore has no special problem of probability: it carries the normative residue that all probabilistic physics carries, and one postulate fewer, since the Born measure is derived and nothing collapses.
Making sense of Born's rule pα=∥Ψα∥2 with the many-worlds interpretation
This work is an attempt to justify Born's rule within the framework of the many-worlds interpretation proposed by Everett. Here, we develop a unitary model of many-minds based on the work of Albert and Loewer (Synthese 77, 195 (1988)). At the difference of the model of Albert and Loewer ours is not genuinely stochastic and dualistic and also involves some classical-like randomness based on ignorance about initial conditions of the Universe. We also compare the present method for recovering Born's rule with previous works based on Decision theory a la Deutsch Wallace and envariance \emph{a la} Zurek and found that all these approaches are strongly related to each other.