The problem of confirmation in the Everett interpretation

Abstract I argue that the Oxford school Everett interpretation is internally incoherent, because we cannot claim that in an Everettian universe the kinds of reasoning we have used to arrive at our beliefs about quantum mechanics would lead us to form true beliefs. I show that in an Everettian context, the experimental evidence that we have available could not provide empirical confirmation for quantum mechanics, and moreover that we would not even be able to establish reference to the theoretical entities of quantum mechanics. I then consider a range of existing Everettian approaches to the probability problem and show that they do not succeed in overcoming this incoherence.

[1]  Simon Saunders,et al.  Comment on Lockwood , 1996 .

[2]  R. Rosenfeld,et al.  Decisions , 1955, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[3]  Jerry A. Fodor,et al.  Language, Thought and Compositionality , 2001, Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement.

[4]  Laurence Bonjour,et al.  Externalist Theories of Empirical Knowledge , 1980 .

[5]  R. Gerard Brains and behavior. , 1959, Human biology.

[6]  J. Altham Naming and necessity. , 1981 .

[7]  Probabilities and the many minds interpretation of quantum mechanics , 1995 .

[8]  Hilary Greaves,et al.  On the Everettian Epistemic Problem , 2007 .

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

[10]  Jaegwon Kim Reasons and the First Person , 1998 .

[11]  Samir Guglani Knowledge , 2016, The Lancet.

[12]  David Wallace Epistemology Quantized: circumstances in which we should come to believe in the Everett interpretation , 2006, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[13]  Jenann Ismael How to Combine Chance and Determinism: Thinking about the Future in an Everett Universe* , 2003, Philosophy of Science.

[14]  David Wallace,et al.  Branching and Uncertainty , 2008, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[15]  David John Baker,et al.  Measurement outcomes and probability in Everettian quantum mechanics , 2007 .

[16]  James B. Hartle,et al.  Quantum Mechanics of Individual Systems , 1968, 1907.02953.

[17]  David Wallace,et al.  Worlds in the Everett interpretation , 2001, quant-ph/0103092.

[18]  Bryce S. DeWitt,et al.  The Many-Universes Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics , 2015 .

[19]  Kevin Jiang Introduction , 2013, Nature Medicine.

[20]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  Knowledge, probability, and adversaries , 1993, JACM.

[21]  James B. Hartle,et al.  Quantum Mechanics in the Light of Quantum Cosmology , 2018, 1803.04605.

[22]  David Z. Albert 8. Probability in the Everett Picture , 2010 .

[23]  Peter Urbach,et al.  Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach , 1989 .

[24]  H. Price Decisions, Decisions, Decisions: Can Savage Salvage Everettian Probability? , 2008, 0802.1390.

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

[26]  Barry Loewer,et al.  Interpreting the many worlds interpretation , 1988, Synthese.

[27]  D. Davidson Belief and the basis of meaning , 1974, Synthese.

[28]  John R. Searle,et al.  Minds, brains, and programs , 1980, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[29]  Meir Hemmo,et al.  Quantum probability and many worlds , 2007 .

[30]  Jeffrey A. BARRElTtt Empirical Adequacy and the Availability of Reliable Records in Quantum Mechanics , 1996 .

[31]  Murray G. Murphey,et al.  Truth and history , 2008 .

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

[33]  Michael G. Titelbaum The Relevance of Self-Locating Beliefs , 2008 .

[34]  David Wallace,et al.  How to Prove the Born Rule , 2010 .

[35]  S. Saunders What is Probability , 2004, quant-ph/0412194.

[36]  S. Brison The Intentional Stance , 1989 .

[37]  P. Tappenden Saunders and Wallace on Everett and Lewis , 2008, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[38]  Christopher J. G. Meacham Sleeping beauty and the dynamics of de se beliefs , 2008 .

[39]  W. Salmon The foundations of scientific inference , 1967 .

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

[41]  Alan Hájek,et al.  “Mises redux” — Redux: Fifteen arguments against finite frequentism , 1996, Erkenntnis.

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

[43]  Jean-Raymond Abrial,et al.  On B , 1998, B.

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

[45]  D. Wallace Decoherence and Ontology, or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love FAPP , 2011, 1111.2189.

[46]  R. Omnes Decoherence and Ontology , 2019, Synthese Library.

[47]  D. Bradley Four Problems about Self-Locating Belief , 2012 .

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

[49]  Joseph Y. Halpern Sleeping Beauty Reconsidered: Conditioning and Reflection in Asynchronous Systems , 2004, KR.

[50]  C. Habel,et al.  Language , 1931, NeuroImage.

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

[52]  Peter J. Lewis Uncertainty and probability for branching selves , 2007 .

[53]  C. Howson,et al.  Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach , 1989 .

[54]  D. Wallace The Everett Interpretation , 2013, Oxford Handbooks Online.

[55]  Foad Dizadji-Bahmani The Probability Problem in Everettian Quantum Mechanics Persists , 2015, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

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

[57]  Max Tegmark,et al.  The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or Many Words? , 1997, Fortschritte der Physik.

[58]  David Wallace,et al.  Justifying Conditionalization: Conditionalization Maximizes Expected Epistemic Utility , 2006 .

[59]  F. G. KENYON,et al.  Time and Chance , 1943, Nature.

[60]  David Papineau A Fair Deal for Everettians , 2010 .

[61]  Jerry A. Fodor Language, Thought and Compositionality , 2001 .

[62]  Alastair Wilson Objective Probability in Everettian Quantum Mechanics , 2013, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[63]  H. Everett "Relative State" Formulation of Quantum Mechanics , 1957 .

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

[65]  D. C. Dermett,et al.  True believers: the intentional strategy and why it works , 1987 .

[66]  Robert Nola,et al.  Fixing the Reference of Theoretical Terms , 1980, Philosophy of Science.

[67]  J. Leslie Observer-relative chances and the doomsday argument , 1997 .

[68]  Adrian Kent,et al.  AGAINST MANY WORLDS INTERPRETATIONS , 1990 .