Epistemology Quantized: circumstances in which we should come to believe in the Everett interpretation

I consider exactly what is involved in a solution to the probability problem of the Everett interpretation, in the light of recent work on applying considerations from decision theory to that problem. I suggest an overall framework for understanding probability in a physical theory, and conclude that this framework, when applied to the Everett interpretation, yields the result that that interpretation satisfactorily solves the measurement problem. 1. Introduction2. What is probability? 2.1Objective probability and the Principal Principle 2.2Three ways of satisfying the functional definition 2.3Cautious functionalism 2.4Is the functional definition complete?3. The Everett interpretation and subjective uncertainty 3.1Interpreting quantum mechanics 3.2The need for subjective uncertainty 3.3Saunders' argument for subjective uncertainty 3.4Objections to Saunders' argument 3.5Subjective uncertainty again: arguments from interpretative charity 3.6Quantum weights and the functional definition of probability4. Rejecting subjective uncertainty 4.1The fission program 4.2Against the fission program5. Justifying the axioms of decision theory 5.1The primitive status of the decision-theoretic axioms 5.2Holistic scepticism 5.3The role of an explanation of decision theory6. Conclusion Introduction What is probability? 2.1Objective probability and the Principal Principle 2.2Three ways of satisfying the functional definition 2.3Cautious functionalism 2.4Is the functional definition complete? The Everett interpretation and subjective uncertainty 3.1Interpreting quantum mechanics 3.2The need for subjective uncertainty 3.3Saunders' argument for subjective uncertainty 3.4Objections to Saunders' argument 3.5Subjective uncertainty again: arguments from interpretative charity 3.6Quantum weights and the functional definition of probability Rejecting subjective uncertainty 4.1The fission program 4.2Against the fission program Justifying the axioms of decision theory 5.1The primitive status of the decision-theoretic axioms 5.2Holistic scepticism 5.3The role of an explanation of decision theory Conclusion

[1]  Sydney Shoemaker,et al.  Causality and Properties , 1980 .

[2]  D. Lewis,et al.  New work for a theory of universals , 1983 .

[3]  M. Dummett The justification of deduction , 1974 .

[4]  D. Lewis How to Define Theoretical Terms , 1970 .

[5]  H. Feigl,et al.  Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science , 1956 .

[6]  Peter J. Lewis What is it like to be Schrödinger's cat? , 2000 .

[7]  L. J. Savage,et al.  The Foundations of Statistics , 1955 .

[8]  C. Fuchs,et al.  Quantum probabilities as Bayesian probabilities , 2001, quant-ph/0106133.

[9]  James M. Joyce The Foundations of Causal Decision Theory , 1999 .

[10]  Roland Omnès The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics , 1987 .

[11]  David Lewis,et al.  How Many Lives Has Schrödinger's Cat? , 2004 .

[12]  Adam Elga,et al.  Self‐locating belief and the Sleeping Beauty problem , 2000 .

[13]  J. Colquhoun,et al.  A matter of chance. , 1992, Australian family physician.

[14]  Hilary Greaves,et al.  Understanding Deutsch's probability in a deterministic multiverse , 2003, quant-ph/0312136.

[15]  David Wallace Everettian Rationality: defending Deutsch's approach to probability in the Everett interpretation , 2003 .

[16]  Graham Priest,et al.  Lewisian Themes: The Philosophy of David K. Lewis , 2004 .

[17]  Asher Peres,et al.  Quantum Theory Needs No ‘Interpretation’ , 2000 .

[18]  Peter J. Lewis Quantum Mechanics, Orthogonality, and Counting , 1997, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[19]  D. Lewis Survival and Identity , 1983 .

[20]  Max Born,et al.  THE INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS* , 1953, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[21]  D. Lewis A Subjectivist’s Guide to Objective Chance , 1980 .

[22]  Michael Lockwood,et al.  'Many Minds' Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics , 1996 .

[23]  P. Inwagen Time and Cause , 1980 .

[24]  David Lewis Radical interpretation , 2004, Synthese.

[25]  Hilary Putnam,et al.  Reason, Truth and History. , 1985 .

[26]  Massimo Marraffa,et al.  Philosophical Papers, vol. I , 1994 .

[27]  D. Parfit Reasons and Persons , 1986 .

[28]  C. Fuchs Quantum Mechanics as Quantum Information (and only a little more) , 2002, quant-ph/0205039.

[29]  David Wallace,et al.  Everett and structure , 2001 .

[30]  Simon Saunders Time, Quantum Mechanics, and Probability , 2004, Synthese.

[31]  D. Papineau,et al.  Many Minds are No Worse than One , 1996 .

[32]  David Wallace Quantum Probability from Subjective Likelihood: improving on Deutsch's proof of the probability rule , 2003 .

[33]  Richard C. Jeffrey,et al.  Studies in inductive logic and probability , 1971 .

[34]  J. L. Mackie,et al.  The Matter of Chance. , 1971 .

[35]  James S Morgan,et al.  Time and Cause: Essays Presented to Richard Taylor , 1984 .

[36]  Samuel Guttenplan,et al.  Identities of Persons. , 1976 .

[37]  Richmond H. Thomason,et al.  Indeterminist time and truth‐value gaps1 , 2008 .

[38]  James M. Joyce The Foundations of Causal Decision Theory by James M. Joyce , 1999 .

[39]  David Papineau Why you don’t want to get in the box with Schrödinger's cat , 2003 .

[40]  Mark Kaplan Decision Theory as Philosophy , 1983, Philosophy of Science.

[41]  Hilary Putnam,et al.  Reason, Truth and History: Contents , 1981 .

[42]  David Wallace,et al.  Language use in a branching Universe , 2005 .

[43]  B. H Slater,et al.  ATTITUDES DE DICTO AND DE SE , 1999 .

[44]  Willard Van Orman Quine,et al.  Word and Object , 1960 .

[45]  L. Vaidman On schizophrenic experiences of the neutron or why we should believe in the many‐worlds interpretation of quantum theory , 1996, quant-ph/9609006.

[46]  D. Davidson Inquiries Into Truth and Interpretation , 1984 .

[47]  David Deutsch Quantum theory of probability and decisions , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.