Everettian Confirmation and Sleeping Beauty

Reply to Wilson

Bibliographic Data

ID8399162
AuthorsDarren Bradley (0000-0002-4410-8633, City College of New York, corresponding author)
Year2015
Volume66
Issue3
Pages683-693
Publication date2015-09-01
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueThe British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0007-0882 • E-ISSN: 1464-3537
PublisherOxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1093/bjps/axt042
OpenAlexW2100917860
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited20

In Bradley ([2011b]), I offered an analysis of Sleeping Beauty and the Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics (EQM). I argued that one can avoid a kind of easy confirmation of EQM by paying attention to observation selection effects, that halfers are right about Sleeping Beauty, and that thirders cannot avoid easy confirmation for the truth of EQM. Wilson ([forthcoming]) agrees with my analysis of observation selection effects in EQM, but goes on to, first, defend Elga’s ([2000]) thirder argument on Sleeping Beauty and, second, argue that the analogy I draw between Sleeping Beauty and EQM fails. I will argue that neither point succeeds. 1 Introduction2 Background3 Wilson’s Argument for 1⁄3 in Sleeping Beauty4 Reply: Explaining Away the Crazy5 Wilson's Argument for the Breakdown of the Analogy6 Reply: The Irrelevance of Chance7 Conclusion

Analogy · Argument (complex analysis) · Beauty · Epistemology · Interpretation (philosophy) · Chemistry · Philosophy · Philosophy and History of Science · Philosophy and Theoretical Science · Quantum Mechanics and Applications

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access