Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T02:48:07.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Probability, Self-Location, and Quantum Branching

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Peter J. Lewis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The main problem with the many-worlds theory is that it is not clear how the notion of probability should be understood in a theory in which every possible outcome of a measurement actually occurs. In this paper, I argue for the following theses concerning the many-worlds theory: (1) If probability can be applied at all to measurement outcomes, it must function as a measure of an agent's self-location uncertainty. (2) Such probabilities typically violate reflection. (3) Many-worlds branching does not have sufficient structure to admit self-location probabilities. (4) Decision-theoretic arguments do not solve this problem.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 76 , Issue 5 , December 2009 , pp. 1009 - 1019
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

Research for this paper was supported by a National Science Foundation Scholar's Award (SES-0724760). I also acknowledge the hospitality and support of the Centre for Time at the University of Sydney and the Department of Philosophy at Durham University. I would like to thank audiences in Sydney, Canberra, and St. Andrews and at the British Society for the Philosophy of Science 2008 and PSA 2008 meetings for helpful feedback.

References

Albert, David, and Loewer, Barry (1988), “Interpreting the Many-Worlds Interpretation”, Interpreting the Many-Worlds Interpretation 77:195–213.Google Scholar
Arntzenius, Frank (2003), “Some Problems for Conditionalization and Reflection”, Some Problems for Conditionalization and Reflection 100:356–370.Google Scholar
Deutsch, David (1999), “Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions”, Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions A 455:3129–3137.Google Scholar
Elga, Adam (2000), “Self-Locating Belief and the Sleeping Beauty Problem”, Self-Locating Belief and the Sleeping Beauty Problem 60:143–147.Google Scholar
Evnine, Simon (2007), “Personhood and Future Belief: Two Arguments for Something Like Reflection”, Personhood and Future Belief: Two Arguments for Something Like Reflection 67:91–110.Google Scholar
Greaves, Hilary (2004), “Understanding Deutsch's Probability in a Deterministic Multiverse”, Understanding Deutsch's Probability in a Deterministic Multiverse 35:423–456.Google Scholar
Lewis, Peter J. (2007), “Uncertainty and Probability for Branching Selves”, Uncertainty and Probability for Branching Selves 38:1–14.Google Scholar
Price, Huw (2008), “Decisions, Decisions, Decisions: Can Savage Salvage Everettian Probability?”, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00003886/.Google Scholar
Vaidman, Lev (1998), “On Schizophrenic Experiences of the Neutron or Why We Should Believe in the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory”, On Schizophrenic Experiences of the Neutron or Why We Should Believe in the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory 12:245–261.Google Scholar
Wallace, David (2003), “Everett and Structure”, Everett and Structure 34:87–105.Google Scholar
Wallace, David (2007), “Quantum Probability from Subjective Likelihood: Improving on Deutsch's Proof of the Probability Rule”, Quantum Probability from Subjective Likelihood: Improving on Deutsch's Proof of the Probability Rule 38:311–332.Google Scholar