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

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

Centered Chance in the Everett Interpretation

Jerome Romagosa

Published Aug 22, 2024• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.1086/732603

Related papers

Centering the Everett Interpretation

Isaac Wilhelm

Abstract I propose an account of probability in the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics. According to the account, probabilities are objective chances of centered propositions. As I show, the account solves a number of problems concerning the role of probability in the Everett interpretation. It also challenges an implicit assumption, concerning the aim and scope of fundamental physical theories, that is made throughout the philosophy of physics literature.

The Philosophical Quarterly•Dec 9, 2021•12 citations

Probability in the Everett World: Comments on Wallace and Greaves

Huw Price

It is often objected that the Everett interpretation of QM cannot make sense of quantum probabilities, in one or both of two ways: either it can't make sense of probability at all, or it can't explain why probability should be governed by the Born rule. David Deutsch has attempted to meet these objections. He argues not only that rational decision under uncertainty makes sense in the Everett interpretation, but also that under reasonable assumptions, the credences of a rational agent in an Everett world should be constrained by the Born rule. David Wallace has developed and defended Deutsch's proposal, and greatly clarified its conceptual basis. In particular, he has stressed its reliance on the distinguishing symmetry of the Everett view, viz., that all possible outcomes of a quantum measurement are treated as equally real. The argument thus tries to make a virtue of what has usually been seen as the main obstacle to making sense of probability in the Everett world. In this note I outline some objections to the Deutsch-Wallace argument, and to related proposals by Hilary Greaves about the epistemology of Everettian QM. (In the latter case, my arguments include an appeal to an Everettian analogue of the Sleeping Beauty problem.) The common thread to these objections is that the symmetry in question remains a very significant obstacle to making sense of probability in the Everett interpretation.

arXiv:quant-ph/0604191•Apr 26, 2006•93 citations

Decision-based Probabilities in the Everett Interpretation: Comments on Wallace and Greaves

Huw Price

It is often objected that the Everett interpretation of QM cannot make adequate sense of quantum probabilities, in one or both of two senses: either it cannot make sense of probability at all, or cannot explain why probability should be governed by the Born rule. David Deutsch has attempted to meet these objections. He argues not only that rational decision under uncertainty makes sense in the Everett interpretation, and that under reasonable assumptions, the credences of a rational agent in an Everett world should be constrained by the Born rule. David Wallace has recently developed and defended Deutsch's proposal, and greatly clarified its conceptual basis. In this note I outline some concerns about the Deutsch argument, as presented by Wallace, and about related proposals by Hilary Greaves. In particular, I argue that the argument is circular, at a crucial point.

•Mar 1, 2006•0 citations

Probabilities in Realist Views of Quantum Mechanics

Christopher G. Timpson

Abstract This chapter examines probabilities in views that take a realist stance on quantum mechanics, i.e., the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber (GRW) theory, the Bohm theory and the Everett interpretation. The GRW theory is found to claim a world that is chancy at a fundamental level at which ‘hits’ occur following an objective probability distribution. Although the Bohm theory gives up indeterminism, it is shown to allow for objective probabilities, this time ranging over initial conditions. However, the theory has difficulties in explaining the validity of the Born Rule. The Everett interpretation is found to be more satisfying in this respect. As Wallace and Deutsch have shown, rational agents in a many-world scenario should set their credences following the Born Rule if they choose among quantum games.

•Sep 1, 2011•4 citations

One State, Many Perspectives: Branch Structure and Born Weights in Everettian Quantum Mechanics

Bertrand Dalimier

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.

•Jul 5, 2026•0 citations

How Everett Solved the Probability Problem in Everettian Quantum Mechanics

Dustin Lazarovici

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.

Quantum Reports•Apr 26, 2023•4 citations
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.
It is often objected that the Everett interpretation of QM cannot make sense of quantum probabilities, in one or both of two ways: either it can't make sense of probability at all, or it can't explain why probability should be governed by the Born rule. David Deutsch has attempted to meet these objections. He argues not only that rational decision under uncertainty makes sense in the Everett interpretation, but also that under reasonable assumptions, the credences of a rational agent in an Everett world should be constrained by the Born rule. David Wallace has developed and defended Deutsch's proposal, and greatly clarified its conceptual basis. In particular, he has stressed its reliance on the distinguishing symmetry of the Everett view, viz., that all possible outcomes of a quantum measurement are treated as equally real. The argument thus tries to make a virtue of what has usually been seen as the main obstacle to making sense of probability in the Everett world. In this note I outline some objections to the Deutsch-Wallace argument, and to related proposals by Hilary Greaves about the epistemology of Everettian QM. (In the latter case, my arguments include an appeal to an Everettian analogue of the Sleeping Beauty problem.) The common thread to these objections is that the symmetry in question remains a very significant obstacle to making sense of probability in the Everett interpretation.
It is often objected that the Everett interpretation of QM cannot make adequate sense of quantum probabilities, in one or both of two senses: either it cannot make sense of probability at all, or cannot explain why probability should be governed by the Born rule. David Deutsch has attempted to meet these objections. He argues not only that rational decision under uncertainty makes sense in the Everett interpretation, and that under reasonable assumptions, the credences of a rational agent in an Everett world should be constrained by the Born rule. David Wallace has recently developed and defended Deutsch's proposal, and greatly clarified its conceptual basis. In this note I outline some concerns about the Deutsch argument, as presented by Wallace, and about related proposals by Hilary Greaves. In particular, I argue that the argument is circular, at a crucial point.
Abstract This chapter examines probabilities in views that take a realist stance on quantum mechanics, i.e., the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber (GRW) theory, the Bohm theory and the Everett interpretation. The GRW theory is found to claim a world that is chancy at a fundamental level at which ‘hits’ occur following an objective probability distribution. Although the Bohm theory gives up indeterminism, it is shown to allow for objective probabilities, this time ranging over initial conditions. However, the theory has difficulties in explaining the validity of the Born Rule. The Everett interpretation is found to be more satisfying in this respect. As Wallace and Deutsch have shown, rational agents in a many-world scenario should set their credences following the Born Rule if they choose among quantum games.
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.
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.