PlumX Metrics
Embed PlumX Metrics

Metaphysical Indeterminacy in the Multiverse

Synthese Library, ISSN: 2542-8292, Vol: 460, Page: 375-395
2022
  • 1
    Citations
  • 0
    Usage
  • 2
    Captures
  • 0
    Mentions
  • 0
    Social Media
Metric Options:   Counts1 Year3 Year

Metrics Details

Book Chapter Description

One might suppose that Everettian quantum mechanics (EQM) is inhospitable to indeterminacy (MI), given that, as A. Wilson (The nature of contingency: Quantum physics as modal realism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2020) puts it, “the central idea of EQM is to replace indeterminacy with multiplicity” (77). But as Wilson goes on to suggest, the popular decoherence-based understanding of EQM (DEQM) appears to admit of indeterminacy in both world number and world nature, where the latter indeterminacy–our focus here–is plausibly metaphysical. After a brief presentation of DEQM, we bolster the case for there being MI in world nature in DEQM. The remainder of the paper is devoted to a comparative assessment of the two main approaches to MI for purposes of accommodating this MI–namely, a metaphysical supervaluationist approach (as per Barnes and Williams (A theory of metaphysical indeterminacy. In: Bennett K, Zimmerman DW (eds) Oxford studies in metaphysics, vol 6. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 103–148, 2011)) and a determinable-based approach (as per Wilson (Inquiry 56:359–385, 2013) and Calosi and Wilson (Philosophical Studies 176:2599–2627, 2018; Philosophical Studies 178:3291–3317, 2021)). We briefly describe each approach, then offer five arguments in favour of a determinable-based approach to world nature MI in DEQM.

Provide Feedback

Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know