Measurement outcomes and probability in Everettian quantum mechanics

Baker, David J.

doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2006.05.003

Cited by 44 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wallace's [2010, 246] formal statement stays close to the informal one. For challenges to other aspects of the argument see Dizadji-Bahmani [2015] for a challenge to branching indifference and a defence of branch counting, Baker [2007] for worries about the use of decoherence, and Adlam [2014] for challenges to the application of decision theory.…”

Section: State Superveniencementioning

confidence: 99%

Everettian quantum mechanics and physical probability: Against the principle of “State Supervenience”

Jansson

2016

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.For more information, please contact eprints@nottingham.ac.uk EVERETTIAN QUANTUM MECHANICS AND PHYSICAL PROBABILITY:AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF "STATE SUPERVENIENCE" Lina JanssonAbstract. Everettian quantum mechanics faces the challenge of how to make sense of probability and probabilistic reasoning in a setting where there is typically no unique outcome of measurements.Wallace has built on a proof by Deutsch to argue that a notion of probability can be recovered in the many worlds setting. In particular, Wallace argues that a rational agent has to assign probabilities in accordance with the Born rule. This argument relies on a rationality constraint that Wallace calls state supervenience. I argue that state supervenience is not defensible as a rationality constraint for Everettian agents unless we already invoke probabilistic notions. idajansson@ntu.edu.sg Nanyang Technological UniversityPhilosophy Programme 14 Nanyang Drive Singapore 637 332Thank you to Wayne Myrvold for discussions of very early ideas in this paper in the "Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" seminar at the University of Michigan. Thanks to Dave Baker and Dan Peterson for many helpful discussions in the same seminar. A particular thanks to Chip Sebens for helpful comments on an earlier draft. Thank you also to the audiences at the 2013 AAP and the 2014 NUS workshop in formal epistemology for their comments, suggestions, and objections. Finally, thank you to the members of the Nottingham reading group. This work was partially supported by a grant from Nanyang Technological University and a visiting fellowship from the University of Nottingham. EVERETTIAN QUANTUM MECHANICS AND PHYSICAL PROBABILITY: AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF "STATE SUPERVENIENCE"Abstract. Everettian quantum mechanics faces the challenge of how to make sense of probability and probabilistic reasoning in a setting where there is typically no unique outcome of measurements.Wallace has built on a proof by Deutsch to argue that a notion of probability can be recovered in the many worlds setting. In particular, Wallace argues that a rational agent has to assign probabilities in accordance with the Born rule. This argument relies on a rationality constraint that Wallace calls state supervenience. I argue that state supervenience is not defensible as a rationality constraint for Everettian agents unless we already invoke probabilistic notions.

show abstract

Section: State Superveniencementioning

confidence: 99%

Everettian quantum mechanics and physical probability: Against the principle of “State Supervenience”

Jansson

2016

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A significant consequence of Z for the Deutsch-Wallace type derivation of the Born rule in terms of subjective probability has been emphasised first by Zurek himself [9, p.25], and then by Baker [11], and Kent [12]. In essence all three authors argue that, since decoherence must be assumed in order to ground the DWE classical decision theoretic framework, and since by invoking decoherence one is inevitably assuming the Born rule, the derivation of the Born rule within the DWE scheme is inherently circular.…”

Section: Circularity and The Zurek Contentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such internal criticisms rest upon implicitly accepting the viability of the DWE framework but questioning particular aspects of its implementation. Another important line of criticism seeks to undermine the DWE claim of a derivation of the Born rule on the basis of a decoherence related circularity objection [9,10,11,12]. A further perceived problem relates to the role played by probabilistic empirical phenomena within the the DWE approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Many worlds: decoherent or incoherent?

Dawid

Thébault

2015

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Deutsch-Wallace-Everett programme is conceptually incoherent since its viability rests upon a notion of decoherence that conflicts with its own fundamental precepts in two respects. These problems are not alleviated by invoking the notion of emergent or robust structure, and are argued to be significant enough to cast doubt upon the viability of the entire neo-Everettian enterprise as it now stands.

show abstract

“…One of its developments was the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) [12], as Bryce DeWitt named it to stimulate debate, was soon to raise objection, some of a more aesthetic order: it was inelegant, absurd and unnecessary to fill the universe endless invisible worlds [9,45,46,47,48,49]. Others, however, identified more tangible shortcomings in the theory, which could be broadly classified in two kinds [47] 2.…”

Section: Relative Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the pointer states

Brasil¹,

Castro²

2015

Eur. J. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In quantum mechanics, pointer states are eigenstates of the observable of the measurement apparatus that represent the possible positions of the display pointer of the equipment. The origin of this concept lies in attempts to fill the blanks in the Everett's relative-state interpretation, and to make it a fully valid description of physical reality. To achieve this, it was necessary to consider not only the main system interacting with the measurement apparatus (like von Neumann and Everett did) but also the role of the environment in eliminating correlations between different possible measurements when interacting with the measurement apparatus. The interaction of the environment with the main system (and the measurement apparatus) is the core of the decoherence theory, which followed Everett's thesis. In this article, we review the measurement process according to von Neumann, Everett's relative state interpretation, the purpose of decoherence and some of its follow-up until Wojciech Zurek's primordial paper that consolidated the concept of pointer state, previously presented by Heinz Dieter Zeh. Employing a simple physical model consisting of a pair of two-level systems -one representing the main system, the other the measurement apparatus -and a thermal bath -representing the environment -we show how pointer states emerge, explaining its contributions to the question of measurement in quantum mechanics, as well as its limitations. Finally, we briefly show some of its consequences. This paper is accessible to readers with elementary knowledge about quantum mechanics, on the level of graduate courses.

show abstract

Measurement outcomes and probability in Everettian quantum mechanics

Cited by 44 publications

References 14 publications

Everettian quantum mechanics and physical probability: Against the principle of “State Supervenience”

Everettian quantum mechanics and physical probability: Against the principle of “State Supervenience”

Many worlds: decoherent or incoherent?

Understanding the pointer states

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About