Reply to Lewis: Metaphysics versus epistemology

Analysis 69 (1):89-91 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Peter J. Lewis argued that the Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics implies the unpopular halfer position in the Sleeping Beauty debate. We retorted that it is perfectly coherent to be an Everettian and an ordinary thirder. In a recent reply to our paper Lewis further clarifies the basis for his thinking. We think this brings out nicely where he goes wrong: he underestimates the importance of metaphysical considerations in determining rational credences.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,783

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
270 (#74,895)

6 months
13 (#192,902)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

David Papineau
King's College London
Víctor Durà-Vilà
University of Leeds

References found in this work

Everett and structure.David Wallace - 2003 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 34 (1):87-105.
Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.Lev Vaidman - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Quantum Sleeping Beauty.Peter J. Lewis - 2007 - Analysis 67 (1):59-65.

View all 7 references / Add more references