Authors:
(1) Eugene Y. S. Chua, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology;
(2) Eddy Keming Chen, âĄDepartment of Philosophy, University of California.
Table of Links
5 Conclusion
We suggest that the EvereÂian understanding of decoherence and branching, as well as the justifications for the Born rule, apply to both WFRE and DMRE. Hence, the theoretical benefits of DMR are available on EQM. Another consequence is that Everettians face a choice between two types of theories, one allowing only pure states for the multiverse and the other allowing mixed states also. The choice will not be based on different understandings of the branching structure or the Born rule, as the Everettian justifications equally apply in both theories, but must involve some other theoretical considerations. In any case, the availability of different versions of EQM is an interesting example of empirical underdetermination. Its implications and possible resolutions are questions we leave for future work.
Acknowledgements
For helpful feedback, we thank Jefferey Barrett, Charles Sebens, Kelvin McQueen, Katie Robertson, Simon Saunders, Tony Short, Karim Thebault, David Wallace, and the ´ participants at the 2023 Workshop on Relational Clocks, Decoherence, and the Arrow of Time at the University of Bristol, and the 2022 California Quantum Interpretation Network Conference at Chapman University.
References
Albert, David. âElementaryÂantum Metaphysicsâ. In: Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum theory: An Appraisal. Ed. by J. T. Cushing, Arthur Fine, and Sheldon Goldstein. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996, pp. 277â284.
â Time and chance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000.
Allori, Valia et al. âPredictions and primitive ontology in quantum foundations: a study of examplesâ. In: The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65.2 (2013), pp. 323â352.
Baker, David. âMeasurement outcomes and probability in Everettian quantum mechanicsâ. In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38.1 (2007), pp. 153â169.
Barrett, Jeffrey. âEverettian Quantum Mechanicsâ. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman. Summer 2023. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2023.
Chen, Eddy Keming. âFrom time asymmetry to quantum entanglement: The Humean unificationâ. In: NousË 56 (2022), pp. 227â255.
â âFundamental Nomic Vaguenessâ. In: The Philosophical Review 131(1) (2022).
â âQuantum Mechanics in a Time-Asymmetric Universe: On the Nature of the Initial Quantum Stateâ. In: The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72.4 (2021), pp. 1155â1183.
â âRealism about the wave functionâ. In: Philosophy Compass 14.7 (2019).
â âStrong Determinismâ. In: Philosophersâ Imprint forthcoming (2022).
â âTimeâs Arrow in a Quantum Universe: On the Status of Statistical Mechanical Probabilitiesâ. In: Statistical Mechanics and Scientific Explanation: Determinism, Indeterminism and Laws of Nature. Ed. by Valid Allori. Singapore: World Scientific, 2020.
Deutsch, David. âQuantum Theory of probability and decisionsâ. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 455.1988 (1999), pp. 3129â3137.
Durr, Detlef et al. âOn the role of density matrices in Bohmian m ¨ echanicsâ. In: Foundations of Physics 35.3 (2005), pp. 449â467.
Kent, Adrian. â307One World Versus Many: Âe Inadequacy of Everettian Accounts of Evolution, Probability, and Scientific Confirmationâ. In: Many Worlds?: Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality. Oxford University Press, June 2010.
Maroney, Owen. âThe Density Matrix in the de BroglieâBohm Approachâ. In: Foundations of Physics 35.3 (2005), pp. 493â510.
McQueen, Kelvin J. and Lev Vaidman. âIn defence of the self-location uncertainty account of probability in the many-worlds interpretationâ. In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 66 (2018), pp. 14â23.
Ney, Alyssa. The world in the wave function: a metaphysics for quantum physics. Oxford University Press, 2021.
Nielsen, Michael A and Isaac L Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010.
Robertson, Katie. âIn search of the holy grail: How to reduce the second law of thermodynamicsâ. In: The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 73.4 (2022), pp. 987â 1020.
Saunders, Simon. âBranch-counting in the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanicsâ. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society A 477.2255 (2021), p. 20210600.
Schlosshauer, Maximilian A.Decoherence: and the quantum-to-classical transition. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007.
Sebens, Charles T. and Sean M. Carroll. âSelf-Locating Uncertainty and the Origin of Probability in Everettian Quantum Mechanicsâ. In: British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1 (2018), axw004.
Tappenden, Paul. âEvidence and Uncertainty in Everett?s Multiverseâ. In: British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62.1 (2011), pp. 99â123.
Vaidman, Lev. âDerivations of the Born Ruleâ. In: Âantum, Probability, Logic: The Work and Influence of Itamar Pitowsky. Ed. by Meir Hemmo and Orly Shenker. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 567â584.
â âMany-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanicsâ. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. by Edward N. Zalta. Fall 2021. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2021. â âOn schizophrenic experiences of the neutron or why we should believe in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theoryâ. In: International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12.3 (1998), pp. 245â261.
Wallace, David. Âe Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory According to the Everett Interpretation. Oxford University Press, 2012. â âThe sky is blue, and other reasons quantum mechanics is not underdetermined by evidenceâ. In: arXiv preprint: 2205.00568 (2022).
This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license.