Identity and Counterparthood in a Many Worlds Universe
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 2-2020 Identity and Counterparthood in a Many Worlds Universe Sophia A.M. Bishop The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/3575 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Identity and Counterparthood in a Many Worlds Universe by Sophia A.M. Bishop A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2020 c 2020 Sophia A.M. Bishop All Rights Reserved ii Identity and Counterparthood in a Many Worlds Universe by Sophia A.M. Bishop This manuscript has been read and accepted by the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date Michael Devitt Chair of Examining Committee Date Nickolas Pappas Executive Officer Supervisory Committee Graham Priest Michael Devitt Barry Loewer David Papineau The City University of New York iii ABSTRACT Identity and Counterparthood in a Many Worlds Universe by Sophia A.M. Bishop Advisor: Graham Priest The Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics - arguably our most powerfully predictive scientific theory to date - describes a branching Universe composed of an infinite number of quasi-classical macroscopic physical worlds. Though elegant in its straightforward rendering of the mechanics, the Many Worlds Interpretation presents a challenge for under- standing identity over time. If we wish to preserve the notion of strict numerical identity, we are faced with the choice between: denying the transitivity of identity; very short-lived lives with near constant death; or accepting that the world is filled with many more individuals than we previously dreamed. In adopting a perdurantist account of identity over time, I argue for this last option. But questions remain about the relationship that branching individuals have to those from whom they've split. In this dissertation, I develop a novel account that I call Many Worlds Counterparts. This theory takes its inspiration from Lewis's Counterpart Theory in offering a modal analysis of de re possibility, but avoids the major challenges that Lewis's theory faces. iv Acknowledgments Firstly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Graham Priest. His prompt and constructive feedback has immeasurably improved this work, though any errors that remain are my own. I'm extremely grateful for the time and care he takes with his students, in particular the weekly meetings of the \Priest Club" that he organizes for us to present work in progress are valuable as much for testing arguments and getting input, as for motivating continued progress and ensuring that we are in regular contact with him and our peers. It's a significant commitment of time and effort, but one that makes a great difference to us. I also appreciate the speed with which he unfailingly responds with feedback and assistance, despite the many demands on his time. I feel very fortunate to have an advisor who is genuinely there for his students; thank you. I must also thank the rest of my dissertation committee: Michael Devitt, Barry Loewer, and David Papineau, for their input and direction on this project. Each of the members of my Dissertation Committee has provided me with insightful comments and thought- provoking feedback which has helped me immeasurably in wading through the quagmire that is quantum physics. I would especially like to thank Michael Devitt, the chairman of my committee. As a teacher, he taught me the importance of just getting things done and avoiding the default state of graduate students everywhere: incompleteness. I feel confident in saying that without Michael's unwavering support, I'd likely never have made it to the finish line. v I am grateful to all of those with whom I have had the pleasure to work and share ideas. Philosophy works best as a collaborative study, and my research has been enriched by the social fabric of which I've been a part over the past several years. My sincere thanks to everyone at the CUNY Graduate Center { to all the current and past members of the Priest Club, whose critical feedback and patience as I worked through my thoughts is irreplaceable. To my fellow graduate students and dear friends who got me through graduate school { Monique Whittaker, whose amazing friendship extended so far as giving myself and my cat a home when hurricane Sandy left us without power for weeks on end; and to Jennifer Corns, for her confidence in me and her philosophical acumen. I'd like to acknowledge, too, my undergraduate philosophy professors at the University of Delaware: Fred Adams, Richard Hanley, and Katherin Rogers, all of whom encouraged me to consider a graduate degree in philosophy, despite knowing full well the realities of the academic job market. Katherin's inspiring introduction to philosophy opened a world of thought to me that I didn't know existed. Richard's course in the philosophy of time travel set me down the path of studying metaphysics and the philosophy of physics that I'm still exploring today. Nobody has been more important to me in the pursuit of this project than the members of my family. I would like to thank my parents, who instilled within me a deep value of learning, made profound financial sacrifices for my education, and who never questioned the value or utility of pursing a doctoral degree in philosophy. While it might be noted that they should have seen this coming in bestowing me with the name `Sophia', nonetheless they might have hoped that I'd seek a degree in mathematics instead. Their love and guidance are with me in whatever I pursue. My siblings have been some of my best friends; their willingness to follow me to the literal ends of the earth have kept me sane in the midst of graduate life in New York City. I will always treasure the hours we spent together. Most importantly, I wish to thank my loving and supportive husband, Tait. If there is one single person on whom I vi could hang the completion of this dissertation, it is him. His profound belief in my abilities has been my rock. He has had confidence in me when I doubted myself, and encouraged me when I needed to be pushed. His patience with me cannot be underestimated. I can't begin to express my gratitude, and wonder, that I found a partner like Tait. I am incredibly privileged to have been surrounded by a community of love and support during my graduate studies. There is a monumental amount of luck when it comes to our lots in life, and I have been incredibly lucky to be able to pursue a doctoral degree in philosophy in the middle of New York City. There are undoubtedly many other people that have impacted the course of events such that I have arrived here. And so, to everyone, thank you. vii Contents Contents viii List of Figures xii 1 The Measurement Problem 1 1.1 Double Slit Experiment . .3 1.2 Which Path Experiments . .7 1.2.1 Experiment 1: Mixed Boxes . .9 1.2.2 Experiment 2: Merge Box . 10 1.2.3 Experiment 3: Merge Box with Wall . 13 1.3 Physics Reimagined . 16 1.3.1 Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics . 19 1.3.2 The Copenhagen Interpretation . 20 1.3.3 Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber . 24 1.3.4 Bohmian Mechanics . 26 1.3.5 The Many Worlds Interpretation . 27 1.3.6 Against Instrumentalism . 28 2 The Many Worlds Interpretation 33 2.1 Interpreting Quantum Mechanics . 35 viii CONTENTS 2.2 The Many Worlds Interpretation, In Brief . 38 2.2.1 Quantum Entanglement . 38 2.3 Objections . 40 2.3.1 Preferred Basis . 40 2.3.2 Probability . 47 2.4 Are There Many, Many Worlds Interpretations? . 63 2.4.1 Everett's Relative State Formulation . 63 2.4.2 The Many Worlds Interpretation, Today . 65 2.4.3 So How Many Many Worlds Interpretations Are There? . 67 3 Identity in a Branching Universe 69 3.1 Identity . 70 3.1.1 \Ordinary" Identity . 70 3.1.2 Branching Identity . 71 3.1.3 An Impasse . 72 3.2 Denying Identity . 74 3.2.1 Parfit . 74 3.2.2 No Fact of the Matter . 78 3.3 Denying Transitivity . 79 3.3.1 Prior . 81 3.3.2 Priest . 82 3.4 Overlapping Individuals . 86 3.4.1 Lewis . 86 3.4.2 Perry . 92 3.4.3 Objections to Perdurantism . 95 ix CONTENTS 4 Transworld Identities 98 4.1 Evaluating Modal Claims . 99 4.1.1 Indicative Versus Modal Claims . 99 4.1.2 Possible Worlds . 101 4.1.3 The Landscape of Logical Space . 102 4.2 Counterfactuals . 105 4.3 De Re Modal Claims . 108 4.4 The Problem of Transworld Identity . 110 4.4.1 Chisholm's Paradox . 111 4.4.2 Forbes' Reduplication Argument . 113 4.4.3 Against Bare Identities . 118 4.5 The Problem for Non-Trivial Individual Essences . 119 4.5.1 Chisholm's Paradox, Again . 121 4.5.2 The Four Worlds Paradox . 122 4.5.3 Responses . 122 4.6 A Pseudo-Problem . 124 4.6.1 Epistemological Assumption . 125 4.6.2 Security of Reference Assumption .