Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T10:51:47.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Review of The Emergent Multiverse - David Wallace, The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory according to the Everett Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2012), xvi+530 pp., $75.00.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Guido Bacciagaluppi  and
Jenann Ismael
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Review
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 82 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 129 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bacciagaluppi, G. 2002. “Remarks on Space-Time and Locality in Everett’s Interpretation.” Paper presented at the Nato Advanced Research Workshop on Modality, Probability, and Bell's Theorems, Krakow, August 19–24, 2001.Google Scholar
Bacciagaluppi, G. 2013a. “The Many Facets of Everett’s Many Worlds.” Review of Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality, ed. Simon Saunders et al. Metascience 22:575–82.Google Scholar
Bacciagaluppi, G. 2013b. Review of The Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Collected Works 1955–1980 with Commentary, by Hugh Everett III, ed. Jeffrey A. Barrett and Peter Byrne. HOPOS 3:348–52.Google Scholar
Bacciagaluppi, G. Forthcoming. “A Critic Looks at QBism.” In New Directions in the Philosophy of Science, ed. Maria Carla Galavotti, Stephan Hartmann, Marcel Weber, Wenceslao González, Dennis Dieks, and Thomas Uebel. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Barrett, Jeffrey A., and Byrne, Peter, eds. 2012. The Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Collected Works 1955–1980 with Commentary, by Hugh Everett III. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 2001. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaconis, Persi. 1998. “A Place for Philosophy? The Rise of Modeling in Statistical Science.” Quarterly of Applied Mathematics 56:797–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, Hugh III. 1957. “‘Relative State’ Formulation of Quantum Mechanics.” Reviews of Modern Physics 29:454–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoefer, Carl. 2007. “The Third Way on Objective Probability: A Sceptic’s Guide to Objective Chance.” Mind 116 (463): 549–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ismael, Jenann. 2009. “Probability in Deterministic Physics.” Journal of Philosophy 106 (2): 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ismael, Jenann 2011. “A Modest Proposal about Chance.” Journal of Philosophy 108 (8): 416–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ismael, Jenann Forthcoming. “How to Be Humean.” In The Blackwell Companion to David Lewis, ed. Barry Loewer and Jonathan Schaffer. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ladyman, James, and Ross, Don, with Spurrett, David and Collier, John. 2007. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1986. “A Subjectivist’s Guide to Objective Chance.” In Philosophical Papers, vol. 2, 83–132. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, Peter. 2012. Review of Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality, ed. Simon Saunders et al. Philosophy of Science 79 (1): 177–81.Google Scholar
Saunders, Simon, Barrett, Jonathan, Kent, Adrian, and Wallace, David, eds. 2010. Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaidman, Lev. 1998. “On Schizophrenic Experiences of the Neutron; or, Why We Should Believe in the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (3): 245–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar