Following Lewis, it is widely held that branching worlds differ in important ways from diverging worlds. There is, however, a simple and natural semantics under which ordinary sentences uttered in branching worlds have much the same truth values as they conventionally have in diverging worlds. Under this semantics, whether branching or diverging, speakers cannot say in advance which branch or world is theirs. They are uncertain as to the outcome. This same semantics ensures the truth of utterances typically made about quantum mechanical contingencies, including statements of uncertainty, if the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is true. The ‘incoherence problem’ of the Everett interpretation, that it can give no meaning to the notion of uncertainty, is thereby solved.

It is widely accepted that the notion of an inertial frame is central to Newtonian mechanics and that the correct space-time structure underlying Newton’s methods in Principia is neo-Newtonian or Galilean space-time. I argue to the contrary that inertial frames are not needed in Newton’s theory of motion, and that the right space-time structure for Newton’s Principia requires the notion of parallelism of spatial directions at different times and nothing more.

The concept of objective probability — chance — has three distinctive features: chances are measured by statistics, but only with high chance, increasing with the number of trials involved; when the chances of the outcomes of a chance process are known, even in the context of a single trial, then one's subjective probabilities — credences — in those outcomes should be set equal to those chances; and finally, chance processes involve uncertainty as to the outcomes of those processes. The second of these features is established for ratios in the squared norms of branches by the Born-rule theorem, proved in Chapter 8. This chapter shows that the first and third hold for those same quantities. All three characteristics of chance thus apply to branching in the Everett interpretation. In consequence, branching processes should be identified with chance processes, and ratios in the squared norms with chances.

A defence is offered of a version of the branch-counting rule in the Everett interpretation (otherwise known as many worlds interpretation) of quantum mechanics that both depends on the state and is continuous in the norm topology on Hilbert space. The well-known branch-counting rule, for realistic models of measurements, in which branches are defined by decoherence theory, fails this test. The new rule hinges on the use of decoherence theory in defining branching structure, and specifically decoherent histories theory. On this basis ratios of branch numbers are defined, free of any convention. They agree with the Born rule and deliver a notion of objective probability similar to naive frequentism, save that the frequencies of outcomes are not confined to a single world at different times, but spread over worlds at a single time. Nor is it ad hoc : it is recognizably akin to the combinatorial approach to thermodynamic probability, as introduced by Boltzmann in 1879. It is identical to the procedure followed by Planck, Bose, Einstein and Dirac in defining the equilibrium distribution of the Bose–Einstein gas. It also connects in a simple way with the decision-theory approach to quantum probability.

The Gibbs Paradox is essentially a set of open questions as to how sameness of gases or fluids (or masses, more generally) are to be treated in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. They have a variety of answers, some restricted to quantum theory (there is no classical solution), some to classical theory (the quantum case is different). The solution offered here applies to both in equal measure, and is based on the concept of particle indistinguishability (in the classical case, Gibbs’ notion of ‘generic phase’). Correctly understood, it is the elimination of sequence position as a labelling device, where sequences enter at the level of the tensor (or Cartesian) product of one-particle state spaces. In both cases it amounts to passing to the quotient space under permutations. ‘Distinguishability’, in the sense in which it is usually used in classical statistical mechanics, is a mathematically convenient, but physically muddled, fiction.

This introductory chapter summarizes the principal positive theses of the book (Section 1), namely, that the unitary evolution of the quantum state, for sufficiently large systems of particles in thermal environments, yields a multiplicity of branching structures (worlds) obeying approximately classical equations, a result that follows from decoherence theory with no special assumptions or additions to the quantum formalism; and that further, the branching of worlds has a natural interpretation in terms of probability, as quantified by the Born rule in terms of ratios of squared norms of branch amplitudes. In particular, an agent who knows the branching structures of the quantum state that will result from his actions is rationally compelled to order his preferences among actions by the expected utilities of those branching structures as defined by the Born rule. He is, moreover, entitled to view a branching process as involving uncertainty as to which branch he will find himself. But independent of the truth of these claims, the theory is still testable: an agent who does not know the branching structure of the state, and who is indeed undecided between a many-worlds and a one-world theory, is rationally bound to update her credences in such theories by conditionalisation on observed statistical evidence, just as she is bound to do in the case of conventional quantum mechanics. Section 2 summarizes some of the arguments and counter-arguments for these claims as developed in subsequent chapters. Section 3 provides some more mathematical and historical background to the Everett interpretation, including a brief introduction to the decoherent histories formalism.