Work #1752

"Relative State" Formulation of Quantum Mechanics

Everett's 1957 Princeton thesis — the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics

Hugh Everett III · 1957 · English · Doctoral dissertation / journal article (Reviews of Modern Physics)

Tradition: Quantum foundations / philosophy of physics

No wave function collapse — the universal wave function branches, and every outcome is realised in a relative state

Hugh Everett's 1957 Princeton doctoral thesis, supervised by John Archibald Wheeler and published in condensed form in Reviews of Modern Physics, proposes a radical solution to the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. Instead of postulating wave function collapse (the Copenhagen interpretation), Everett argues that the universal wave function never collapses: every quantum measurement causes the universe to branch into relative states, each realising one possible outcome. The observer in each branch sees a definite result and is unaware of the other branches. Ignored for decades, the thesis was revived by Bryce DeWitt in the 1970s as the "many-worlds interpretation" and is now one of the leading interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Author

Editions cited

  • "Relative State" Formulation of Quantum Mechanics (Reviews of Modern Physics 29, 1957, pp. 454–462)
  • The Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Collected Works 1955–1980 (Jeffrey Barrett and Peter Byrne, eds., Princeton, 2012)
  • The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett III (Peter Byrne, Oxford, 2010)

School Embodiments

Multiverse Theory · 45%
Quantum Realism · 25%
Determinism · 10%
Realism · 10%
Naturalism · 5%
Philosophy of Science · 5%

Everett's thesis is the founding text of the many-worlds interpretation — the single most influential multiverse proposal in physics.

"From the viewpoint of the theory, all elements of a superposition are equally 'real.'" (Everett, 1957, Reviews of Modern Physics)

Everett takes the wave function to be physically real — not merely a calculational device. The universal wave function is the fundamental ontology.

"We shall assume the wave function to be the basic physical entity." (Everett, 1957)

In Everett's formulation, the universal wave function evolves deterministically — all apparent randomness is a feature of the observer's relative state, not of the fundamental dynamics.

"The wave equation is satisfied at all times for the complete system — observer plus object." (Everett, 1957)
Realism 10%

The thesis is motivated by realist dissatisfaction with the Copenhagen interpretation's instrumentalism — Everett wants a theory of what physically exists, not just what we can predict.

"The task of describing the theory is that of describing the nature of the physical reality." (Everett, long thesis, 1956)

Everett's approach treats the observer as a physical system within nature — no special observer-collapse postulate, no consciousness exception.

"The observer is treated as a physical system; there is no separate postulate for observation." (Everett, 1957)

The thesis raises foundational questions about theory choice, ontological parsimony, and the interpretation of formalism that have driven philosophy of physics for decades.

"The formalism is capable of yielding its own interpretation." (Everett, 1957)

Internal Tensions

The principal tension is the preferred-basis problem: if the universal wave function branches, what determines the basis in which it branches? Decoherence theory has partially addressed this, but the question remains open. A second tension is the probability problem: if all outcomes are realised, what does it mean to say one is more probable than another? Everett's answer (measure on the Hilbert space) has been extensively debated. A third tension: the theory was almost entirely ignored during Everett's lifetime; he left physics for defense consulting and died in 1982.

I. Time

Time in Everett's formulation is uni-directional and continuous — the universal wave function evolves deterministically under the Schrodinger equation. There is no collapse interrupting the flow.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: Deterministic Traversability: Linear Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One

II. Space

Space is non-local: quantum entanglement — the very phenomenon the relative-state formulation is designed to handle — is fundamentally non-local. The branching structure means that spatially separated outcomes coexist.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-local

III. Matter

Matter is described by the universal wave function — substantival, conserved, and non-locally entangled. There is no fundamental distinction between matter and the wave function that describes it.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-local

IV. Observer

The observer is a physical subsystem, not a privileged entity. Each observer finds itself in a definite relative state (one branch) but cannot access the other branches. The observer is passive — observation does not cause collapse.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Multiple Knowledge Extent: Partial Knowledge Retainment: Total Physicality: Embodied Agency: Passive Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: None

V. Energy

Energy is conserved within the universal wave function's unitary evolution. The branching does not create or destroy energy — it redistributes it across relative states.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

VI. Information

Information is globally conserved (unitary evolution preserves it) but locally inaccessible across branches. Personal information is not conserved: the observer splits into multiple copies with no access to each other's information.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Substantival Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Non-conserved Granularity: Continuous

Personas that cite this work

Hugh Everett III

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

How "Relative State" Formulation of Quantum Mechanics resolves each dilemma

51 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 10 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 6 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 10% of schools agree (20/202)
Do you really choose?
If the brain is a physical system and physical systems are governed by laws, then every choice is also a chain of causes — which raises the question of what was really left to choose.
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
On this view, the future is fixed by the present, and the observer is a recipient of causes rather than an originator of them. The sense of choosing is real — but what is being chosen is itself a consequence of brain states that were …
Roads not taken The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. (69%) · Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites. (9%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 10% of schools agree (20/202)
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Addiction looks from one angle like the textbook case of agency failing — a person doing what they don't, in any meaningful sense, want to do. From another angle it looks like agency at work in hard conditions. Which it is depends on what agency is.
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
On this view, the addict's brain state, history, genetics, and circumstances jointly produce the behaviour, and there is nothing inside the person that could have produced anything else. Calling the addict responsible is at best a social tool — useful for the deterrent and rehabilitative …
Roads not taken The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. (69%) · The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order. (9%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 10% of schools agree (20/202)
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
When an autonomous AI takes an action that harms someone, the question of who or what is responsible — the developer, the operator, the model itself — turns on whether the model is the kind of thing that can be a responsible agent.
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
On this view, the AI's output is a function of its training data, its architecture, and the input it received. There is no extra fact about the AI that could ground its responsibility, because there is no extra fact about the AI that could have …
Roads not taken An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. (69%) · The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible. (9%) · Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one. (6%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed.
On this view, the cosmos has neither a temporal horizon nor a material exhaustion point. The framing of running out presupposes bounds that the cosmos doesn't have. Energy gradients perpetuate; new configurations emerge; the categories that make heat-death scary don't apply at the cosmic scale.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering.
On this view, matter and time are both unbounded at the largest scales. Terrestrial resource limits are real engineering and political constraints but not metaphysical ones; the cosmos can in principle support whatever expansion intelligence is capable of.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit. (12%)
4 mainstream positions
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 4 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (25/202)
What is our place in nature?
Whether humans are masters of nature, members of nature, or makers of nature is not a question climate science can settle. It depends on what nature is, what we are, and what kind of relationship is possible between us.
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
On these views, nature is a real, ordered, mind-independent reality that we are inside of but did not construct. Our fundamental posture toward it is one of observation, discovery, and humility before laws that are not ours to make. Stewardship and conservation are real obligations, …
Roads not taken Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. (48%) · Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world. (15%) · Embedded in a web — partners with the more-than-human world. (15%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (25/202)
Should we colonize space?
The drive to extend human presence beyond Earth is sometimes framed as the next chapter of stewardship, sometimes as hubris, sometimes as escape from problems we ought to solve here. Which it is depends on what we take our relationship to nature to be.
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
On these views, humans operate within a given natural order whose laws and limits set the terms. Space colonisation is fine to the extent that it is actually possible — radiation, gravity wells, biological tolerances — and folly to the extent that it requires denying …
Roads not taken Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. (48%) · The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it. (15%) · Colonisation continues the work that ended the wisdom of seven-generation thinking. (15%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (25/202)
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Editing the genomes of the plants and animals we eat is either the natural continuation of breeding — careful improvement of what is given — or a category error that treats biology as raw material rather than as living kind.
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
On these views, organisms are real biological systems with real constraints, and genetic modification is reasonable when it works within those constraints and dangerous when it ignores them. The question is technical: does this modification do what its proponents say, with the unintended consequences they …
Roads not taken Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. (48%) · What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction. (15%) · Editing the genome cuts into the relational fabric; we should be very slow. (15%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (25/202)
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Carbon emissions in your country contribute to flooding in another. A factory's effluent across the border kills ecosystems you'll never see. Whether you bear moral weight for what happens far away turns on whether distance dilutes obligation.
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; what is real is the connection, not its length.
On this view, the obligations one bears extend across distance because the connections do. Carbon emissions, trade flows, the global supply chains we are part of, the ancestral and ecological webs that hold the planet together — these constitute real connections that distance does not …
Roads not taken Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally. (50%) · Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos. (29%) · Harm anywhere is harm to the One; the boundary that would have insulated you was never real. (8%)
27 mainstream positions
Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 54% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 54% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for. 49% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer. 49% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems. 46% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical. 46% Does prayer change God's mind? If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next. 46% Are the dead morally present to the living? Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present. 44% Is reality fundamentally digital? No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. 37% Are there indivisible units of experience? No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time. 37% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams. 37% What makes someone the same person over time? You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity. 36% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed. 36% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? Different body, different person — you died in the scanner. 36% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind. 32% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration. 32% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce. 32% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it. 32% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing. 32% What happens to "you" when you die? Death is genuinely the end. 30% Could an AI have a mind that matters? No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain. 30%
6 unaligned
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
← #1751 Samkhyakarika All Works #1753 Fragments and Testimonia →