Sider's stage theory and expectancy prior to personal fission

According to Sider’s stage theory a subject about to undergo personal fission should expect to experience each outcome simultaneously as distinct persons. How is the subject to make sense of this ? I argue that their most paradigmatically self-interested future-directed behaviour, betting for personal gain, ought to be exactly the same as in equivalent games of chance where the possible outcomes correspond to the fission output branches. So this novel form of expectancy, albeit strange, can be a reliable guide to actio

Objective Probability and the Mind-Body Relation

Objective probability in quantum mechanics is often thought to involve a stochastic process whereby an actual future is selected from a range of possibilities. Everett’s seminal idea is that all possible definite futures on the pointer basis exist as components of a macroscopic linear superposition. I demonstrate that these two conceptions of what is involved in quantum processes are linked via two alternative interpretations of the mind-body relation. This leads to a fission, rather than divergence, interpretation of Everettian theory and to a novel explanation of why a principle of indifference does not apply to self-location uncertainty for a post-measurement, pre-observation subject, just as Sebens and Carroll claim. Their Epistemic Separability Principle is shown to arise out of this explanation and the derivation of the Born rule for Everettian theory is thereby put on a firmer footing

Against Semantic Externalism and Zombies

It is widely believed that the semantic contents of some linguistic and mental representations are determined by factors independent of a person’s bodily makeup. Arguments derived from Hilary Putnam’s seminal Twin Earth thought experiment have been especially influential in establishing that belief. I claim that there is a neglected version of the mind-body relation which undermines those arguments and also excludes the possibility of zombies. It has been neglected because it is counterintuitive but I show that it can nonetheless be intelligibly worked out in detail and all obvious objections met. This suggests that we may be faced with a choice between embracing a counterintuitive interpretation of the mind-body relation or accepting that a currently very promising theory in cognitive science, Prediction Error Minimization, faces a fundamental problem. Furthermore, blocking that threat entails that any physicalist/materialst theory of mind is freed from the spectre of zombie worlds. The proposal also makes the ideas of personal teleportation of mind uploading more plausible

Everettian theory as pure wave mechanics plus a no-collapse probability postulate

Proposed derivations of the Born rule for Everettian theory are controversial. I argue that they are unnecessary but may provide justification for a simplified version of the Principal Principle. It’s also unnecessary to replace Everett’s idea that a subject splits in measurement contexts with the idea that subjects have linear histories which partition (Deutsch 1985, 2011; Saunders and Wallace 2008; Saunders 2010; Wallace 2012, Chapter 7; Wilson 2013; forthcoming). Linear histories were introduced to provide a concept of pre-measurement uncertainty and I explain why pre-measurement uncertainty for splitting subjects is after all coherent, though not necessary because Everett’s original fission interpretation of branching can arguably be rendered coherent without it, via reference to (Vaidman 1998; Tappenden 2011; Sebens and Carroll 2018; McQueen and Vaidman 2019). A deterministic and probabilistic quantum mechanics can be made intelligible by replacing the standard collapse postulate with a no-collapse postulate which identifies objective probability with relative branch weight, supplemented by the simplified Principal Principle and some revisionary metaphysics

Against Semantic Externalism and Zombies

It is widely believed that the semantic contents of some linguistic and mental representations are determined by factors independent of a person’s bodily makeup. Arguments derived from Hilary Putnam’s seminal Twin Earth thought experiment have been especially influential in establishing that belief. I claim that there is a neglected version of the mind-body relation which undermines those arguments and also excludes the possibility of zombies. It has been neglected because it is counterintuitive but I show that it can nonetheless be intelligibly worked out in detail and all obvious objections met. This suggests that we may be faced with a choice between embracing a counterintuitive interpretation of the mind-body relation or accepting that a currently very promising theory in cognitive science, Prediction Error Minimization, faces a fundamental problem. Furthermore, blocking that threat entails that any physicalist/materialst theory of mind is freed from the spectre of zombie worlds. The proposal also makes the ideas of personal teleportation of mind uploading more plausible

A Set-Theoretic Metaphysics for Wavefunction

Set theory brought revolution to philosophy of mathematics and it can bring revolution to philosophy of physics too. All that stands in the way is the intuition that sets of physical objects cannot themselves be physical objects, which appears to derive from the ubiquitous assumption that it is possible for there to exist numerically distinct observers in qualitatively identical cognitive states. Overturning that assumption allows construing the wavefunction of an elementary particle as being a set of elemental particles with definite properties. A free electron in an observers universe is a set of elemental electrons on different trajectories, each in an elemental parallel universe. For any region in an observers environment which includes part of the environmental electrons wavefunction there is a subset of elemental electrons located in parallel elemental regions. The measure of that subset on the set which is the environmental electron is the absolute square of quantum amplitude for the environmental region. Decoherence induces Everettian branching as the partitioning of wavefunction into subsets whose measures are the objective probabilities of quasi-classical events within branches. Phase arises through interactions between elemental universes, as with Many Interacting Worlds theory, the difference being that an observers environment is constituted by a set of worlds. That environment contains superpositions as sets of elemental particle configurations.Comment: 7.2k words. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:2309.1400

Sider's stage theory and expectancy prior to personal fission

According to Sider’s stage theory a subject about to undergo personal fission should expect to experience each outcome simultaneously as distinct persons. How is the subject to make sense of this ? I argue that their most paradigmatically self-interested future-directed behaviour, betting for personal gain, ought to be exactly the same as in equivalent games of chance where the possible outcomes correspond to the fission output branches. So this novel form of expectancy, albeit strange, can be a reliable guide to actio

A Set-Theoretic Metaphysics for Quantum Mechanics

Set theory brought revolution to philosophy of mathematics and it can bring revolution to philosophy of physics too. All that stands in the way is the intuition that sets of physical objects cannot themselves be physical objects, which appears to depend on the ubiquitous assumption that it is possible for there to exist numerically distinct observers in qualitatively identical mental states. Overturning that assumption opens the way to construing an object in superposition in an observers environment as a set of objects in definite states. The components of the superposition are subsets for which all the elements are in the same definite state. So an environmental z-spin-up electron becomes a set of elemental electrons each of which has definite spin for one orientation but lacks indefinite spin for other orientations. The environmental z-spin-up electron has subsets of elemental electrons for every orientation but it is only the subset with spins on the z-axis for which all the elements of the subset have the same value, namely spin-up. The subset of elemental electrons with spins on the x-axis has subsets of spin-up and spin-down elemental electrons of equal measure. Observers only detect the spins of environmental electrons, not those of elemental electrons.Comment: only 6k word

Objective Probability and the Mind-Body Relation

Objective probability in quantum mechanics is often thought to involve a stochastic process whereby an actual future is selected from a range of possibilities. Everett’s seminal idea is that all possible definite futures on the pointer basis exist as components of a macroscopic linear superposition. I demonstrate that these two conceptions of what is involved in quantum processes are linked via two alternative interpretations of the mind-body relation. This leads to a fission, rather than divergence, interpretation of Everettian theory and to a novel explanation of why a principle of indifference does not apply to self-location uncertainty for a post-measurement, pre-observation subject, just as Sebens and Carroll claim. Their Epistemic Separability Principle is shown to arise out of this explanation and the derivation of the Born rule for Everettian theory is thereby put on a firmer footing