English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Proposed derivations of the Born rule for Everettian theory arecontroversial. I argue that they are unnecessary but may provide justificationfor a simplified version of the Principal Principle. It's also unnecessary toreplace Everett's idea that a subject splits in measurement contexts with theidea 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 ofpre-measurement uncertainty and I explain why pre-measurement uncertainty forsplitting subjects is after all coherent, though not necessary becauseEverett's original fission interpretation of branching can arguably be renderedcoherent without it, via reference to Vaidman 1998; Tappenden 2011; Sebens andCarroll 2018; McQueen and Vaidman 2019. A deterministic and probabilisticquantum mechanics can be made intelligible by replacing the standard collapsepostulate with a no-collapse postulate which identifies objective probabilitywith relative branch weight, supplemented by the simplified Principal Principleand some revisionary metaphysics.

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