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

arXiv:quant-ph/0111072

Probability and the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory

Lev Vaidman A

Published Nov 13, 2001• 11 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Two works related to the concept of probability in the framework of the many-worlds interpretation are presented. The first deals with recent controversy in classical probability theory. Elga and D. Lewis argues that Sleeping Beauty should have different credences for the result of a fair coin toss in a particular situation. It is argued that when the coin is replaced by a quantum coin, the credence is unambiguous and since one should not expect a difference between classical and quantum coins, this provides a particular resolution of the controversy. Second work is an analysis of a recent criticism by Byrne and Hall of Everett-type approach presented by Chalmers. It is shown that the criticism has no universal validity and that the Byrne and Hall rejection of any Everett-type interpretation of quantum mechanics is unfounded.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0111072

Related papers

Discussion: Byrne and Hall on Everett and Chalmers

Lev Vaidman A

Byrne and Hall (1999) criticized the argument of Chalmers (1996) in favor of the Everett-style interpretation. They claimed to show ``the deep and underappreciated flaw in ANY Everett-style interpretation''. I will argue that it is possible to interpret Chalmers's writing in such a way that most of the criticism by Byrne and Hall does not apply. In any case their general criticism of the many-worlds interpretation is unfounded. The recent recognition that the Everett-style interpretations are good (if not the best) interpretations of quantum mechanics has, therefore, not been negated.

arXiv:quant-ph/0001057•Jan 16, 2000•4 citations

Quantum Sleeping Beauty

Paul J Lewis

The Sleeping Beauty paradox in epistemology and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics both raise problems concerning subjective probability assignments. Furthermore, there are striking parallels between the two cases; in both cases personal experience has a branching structure, and in both cases the agent loses herself among the branches. However, the treatment of probability is very different in the two cases, for no good reason that I can see. Suppose, then, that we adopt the same treatment of probability in each case. Then the dominant ‘thirder’ solution to the Sleeping Beauty paradox becomes incompatible with the tenability of the many-worlds interpretation.

Analysis•Jan 1, 2007•76 citations

Many worlds: quantum theory and reality?

Iñaki San Pedro

Recent years have seen a good deal of work done on one of the most mind blowing and conceptually radical views in quantum mechanics, namely the ‘many worlds’ interpretation of quantum mechanics. Many worlds was first proposed by Hugh Everett III in his long Ph.D. dissertation, which only some years later, and after significant shortening, came to be published as the ‘Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics’ (Everett 1957). To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first publication of Everett's ideas, two conferences were held at Oxford University and the Perimeter Institute, which brought together some of the most active researchers in the field. The works presented in these two conferences have now been compiled in the volume Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory and Reality, edited by Simon Saunders, Jonathan Barrett, Adrian Kent and David Wallace.1 This is then a comprehensive collection of papers – 23 papers altogether – where the reader will find virtually anything that can be said about the many worlds interpretation today.

Analysis•Feb 16, 2012•1 citation

The Many Worlds Interpretation

Jonathan Allday

The hidden variable theories are, more cumbersome and artificial—while the Copenhagen interpretation is hopelessly incomplete because of its a priori reliance on classical physics, as well as a philosophic monstrosity with a “reality” concept for the macroscopic world and denial of the same for microcosm. In recent work on the Everett (Many-Worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics, it has increasingly been recognized that any version of the interpretation worth defending will be one in which the basic formalism of quantum mechanics is left unchanged. Properties such as the interpretation of wave-function as describing a multiverse of branching worlds, or the ascription of probabilities to the branching events, must be emergent from the unitary quantum mechanics rather than added explicitly to the mathematics. Deutsch’s strategy was to introduce a few assumptions from decision theory into the Everett interpretation and then to show how they work with quantum theory to create a natural value measure that is the same as the expectation value.

CRC Press eBooks•Sep 21, 2022•1 citation

Sleeping Beauty in One or Many Worlds: A Defense of the Halfer Position

Jiaxuan Zhang

The Sleeping Beauty Problem (SBP) is a long-standing puzzle in classical probability theory and has been used to challenge the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics, since both involve objective determinacy combined with subjective uncertainty about certain events. A common concern is that MWI yields a different answer to the quantum version of SBP than the widely supported Thirder position in the classical case. We argue that this concern is unwarranted. We show that in both the quantum and classical versions of SBP, the correct credence is given by the Halfer position. In the quantum (MWI) SBP, we show that if no unjustified renormalization is introduced, the correct credence is 1/2. We then extend this result to the classical SBP by refuting four major arguments for 1/3. First, we reject the Proportion Argument by distinguishing event weight from probability. Second, we rebut Elga's Variant Argument by extending an earlier critique that identifies the implicit introduction of additional information; we further clarify this point by constructing a new variant and explaining why the Principle of Indifference is inapplicable, drawing an analogy with a mistake by d'Alembert in the history of probability theory. Third, we identify a flaw in the Technicolor Beauty Variant Argument, which arises from treating overlapping events as disjoint. Finally, we argue that causal decision theory is inappropriate for SBP, rendering the Thirders vulnerable to a Dutch Book. Our results support the consistency of MWI under the challenge posed by SBP and suggest that the dominant position on SBP needs careful reconsideration.

quant-pharXiv:2603.03553•Mar 5, 2026•0 citations

A thirder and an Everettian: a reply to Lewis's 'Quantum Sleeping Beauty'

David Papineau, Víctor Durà-Vilà

Since the publication of Elga's seminal paper in 2000, the Sleeping Beauty paradox has been the source of much discussion, particularly in this journal. Over the past few decades the Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics1 has also been much debated. There is an interesting connection between the way these two topics raise issues about subjective probability assignments. This connection is often alluded to, but as far as we know Peter J. Lewis's ‘Quantum Sleeping Beauty’ (2007a) is the first attempt to examine it explicitly. Lewis claims that the two debates are not independent: to be specific, he argues that accepting the Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics requires you to be a ‘halfer’ about Sleeping Beauty, in opposition to the more widely accepted ‘thirder’ solution. This paper will argue that Lewis is wrong. Everettians do not have to be halfers. It is perfectly cogent to be both an Everettian and a thirder.

Analysis•Jan 1, 2009•15 citations
Two works related to the concept of probability in the framework of the many-worlds interpretation are presented. The first deals with recent controversy in classical probability theory. Elga and D. Lewis argues that Sleeping Beauty should have different credences for the result of a fair coin toss in a particular situation. It is argued that when the coin is replaced by a quantum coin, the credence is unambiguous and since one should not expect a difference between classical and quantum coins, this provides a particular resolution of the controversy. Second work is an analysis of a recent criticism by Byrne and Hall of Everett-type approach presented by Chalmers. It is shown that the criticism has no universal validity and that the Byrne and Hall rejection of any Everett-type interpretation of quantum mechanics is unfounded.
Byrne and Hall (1999) criticized the argument of Chalmers (1996) in favor of the Everett-style interpretation. They claimed to show ``the deep and underappreciated flaw in ANY Everett-style interpretation''. I will argue that it is possible to interpret Chalmers's writing in such a way that most of the criticism by Byrne and Hall does not apply. In any case their general criticism of the many-worlds interpretation is unfounded. The recent recognition that the Everett-style interpretations are good (if not the best) interpretations of quantum mechanics has, therefore, not been negated.
The Sleeping Beauty paradox in epistemology and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics both raise problems concerning subjective probability assignments. Furthermore, there are striking parallels between the two cases; in both cases personal experience has a branching structure, and in both cases the agent loses herself among the branches. However, the treatment of probability is very different in the two cases, for no good reason that I can see. Suppose, then, that we adopt the same treatment of probability in each case. Then the dominant ‘thirder’ solution to the Sleeping Beauty paradox becomes incompatible with the tenability of the many-worlds interpretation.
Recent years have seen a good deal of work done on one of the most mind blowing and conceptually radical views in quantum mechanics, namely the ‘many worlds’ interpretation of quantum mechanics. Many worlds was first proposed by Hugh Everett III in his long Ph.D. dissertation, which only some years later, and after significant shortening, came to be published as the ‘Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics’ (Everett 1957). To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first publication of Everett's ideas, two conferences were held at Oxford University and the Perimeter Institute, which brought together some of the most active researchers in the field. The works presented in these two conferences have now been compiled in the volume Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory and Reality, edited by Simon Saunders, Jonathan Barrett, Adrian Kent and David Wallace.1 This is then a comprehensive collection of papers – 23 papers altogether – where the reader will find virtually anything that can be said about the many worlds interpretation today.
The hidden variable theories are, more cumbersome and artificial—while the Copenhagen interpretation is hopelessly incomplete because of its a priori reliance on classical physics, as well as a philosophic monstrosity with a “reality” concept for the macroscopic world and denial of the same for microcosm. In recent work on the Everett (Many-Worlds) interpretation of quantum mechanics, it has increasingly been recognized that any version of the interpretation worth defending will be one in which the basic formalism of quantum mechanics is left unchanged. Properties such as the interpretation of wave-function as describing a multiverse of branching worlds, or the ascription of probabilities to the branching events, must be emergent from the unitary quantum mechanics rather than added explicitly to the mathematics. Deutsch’s strategy was to introduce a few assumptions from decision theory into the Everett interpretation and then to show how they work with quantum theory to create a natural value measure that is the same as the expectation value.
The Sleeping Beauty Problem (SBP) is a long-standing puzzle in classical probability theory and has been used to challenge the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics, since both involve objective determinacy combined with subjective uncertainty about certain events. A common concern is that MWI yields a different answer to the quantum version of SBP than the widely supported Thirder position in the classical case. We argue that this concern is unwarranted. We show that in both the quantum and classical versions of SBP, the correct credence is given by the Halfer position. In the quantum (MWI) SBP, we show that if no unjustified renormalization is introduced, the correct credence is 1/2. We then extend this result to the classical SBP by refuting four major arguments for 1/3. First, we reject the Proportion Argument by distinguishing event weight from probability. Second, we rebut Elga's Variant Argument by extending an earlier critique that identifies the implicit introduction of additional information; we further clarify this point by constructing a new variant and explaining why the Principle of Indifference is inapplicable, drawing an analogy with a mistake by d'Alembert in the history of probability theory. Third, we identify a flaw in the Technicolor Beauty Variant Argument, which arises from treating overlapping events as disjoint. Finally, we argue that causal decision theory is inappropriate for SBP, rendering the Thirders vulnerable to a Dutch Book. Our results support the consistency of MWI under the challenge posed by SBP and suggest that the dominant position on SBP needs careful reconsideration.
Since the publication of Elga's seminal paper in 2000, the Sleeping Beauty paradox has been the source of much discussion, particularly in this journal. Over the past few decades the Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics1 has also been much debated. There is an interesting connection between the way these two topics raise issues about subjective probability assignments. This connection is often alluded to, but as far as we know Peter J. Lewis's ‘Quantum Sleeping Beauty’ (2007a) is the first attempt to examine it explicitly. Lewis claims that the two debates are not independent: to be specific, he argues that accepting the Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics requires you to be a ‘halfer’ about Sleeping Beauty, in opposition to the more widely accepted ‘thirder’ solution. This paper will argue that Lewis is wrong. Everettians do not have to be halfers. It is perfectly cogent to be both an Everettian and a thirder.