 strongly deterministic: given the laws, there is only one microscopic history of the universe that is possible. That makes the actual history of the Everettian universe nomologically necessary.6 We arrived at a strongly deterministic version of the Wentaculus ("W" for the initial density matrix). Not all versions of the Wentaculus are strongly deterministic. The Bohmian version is not strongly deterministic because there are additional independent variables representing possible initial locations of point particles. The GRW version is not strongly deterministic because the dynamics is stochastic and admitting objective chances. The Everettian Wentaculus theory we outlined above admits two interpretations: one that is compatible with a fundamental material ontology and the other compatible 6More precisely, we can write down the postulates of this version of Everett. The Initial Projection Hypothesis is as follows: ŴIPH(t0) = IPH dimHPH (1) where IPH is the projection operator onto the subspace HPH and "dim" counts the dimension of that subspace. The Von Neumann Equation is as follows: ih ∂Ŵ ∂t = [Ĥ, Ŵ] (2) where the commutator bracket denotes the linear evolution generalized from the Schrödinger equation. 14 with the cosmic void scenario. For the first one, we can postulate that at the fundamental layer of reality there is matter: the quantum state, the reduced states, or the matter-density ontology represented by m(x, t).7 The non-fundamental facts and the manifest image are recovered by using facts about fundamental material ontology as well as the laws. However, it also supports a second interpretation that is compatible with the cosmic void scenario. Since the laws are sufficient to determine the actual microstate of the universe at all times, following the arguments in §2, we no longer need to postulate facts about fundamental material ontology to explain the non-fundamental facts. We can bypass the fundamental ontology and to derive facts about the locations of tables and chairs directly from the laws-in this case the von Neumann equation that determines how density matrix evolves and the Initial Projection Hypothesis that fixes the initial density matrix. However, the language we use here can be misleading. The equation and the hypothesis seem to assume the existence of some material object represented by the density matrix. But it does not have to exist at the fundamental level. All we need is the information stored in the laws of nature. (What are the laws about if they are not about some fundamental objects changing in time? We
strongly deterministic: given the laws, there is merely one microscopic history of the population that is possible. That makes the actual history of the Everettian population nomologically necessary.6 We arrived at a powerfully deterministic version of the Wentaculus (" W " for the initial density matrix). Not all translation of the Wentaculus are powerfully deterministic. The Bohmian version is not strongly deterministic because there are additional independent variable representing possible initial placement of distributor point particles. The GRW version is not strongly deterministic because the dynamics is stochastic and admitting objective opportunity. The Everettian Wentaculus theory we outlined above admits two interpretation: one that is compatible with a fundamental material ontology and the other compatible 6More precisely, we can write down the postulate of this version of Everett. The Initial Projection Hypothesis is as follow: ŴIPH(t0) = IPH dimHPH (1) where IPH is the projection operator onto the subspace HPH and " dim " counts the property of that subspace. The Von Neumann Equation is as follows: ih ∂Ŵ ∂t = [ Ĥ, Ŵ ] (2) where the commutator bracket denotes the linear evolution generalized from the Schrödinger equation. 14 with the cosmic void scenario. For the first one, we can postulate that at the fundamental layer of reality there is matter: the quantum state, the reduced states, or the matter - density ontology represent by m(x, t).7 The non - fundamental facts and the apparent prototype are recover by using facts about fundamental material ontology as well as the laws. However, it also corroborate a second interpretation that is compatible with the cosmic void scenario. Since the laws are sufficient to determine the actual microstate of the universe at all times, succeed the arguments in § 2, we no longer need to postulate facts about cardinal material ontology to excuse the non - fundamental facts. We can bypass the fundamental ontology and to derive facts about the locations of table and chairs directly from the laws - in this case the von Neumann equation that determines how density matrix evolves and the Initial Projection Hypothesis that fixes the initial concentration matrix. However, the language we use here can be misleading. The equation and the hypothesis look to assume the being of some material aim represented by the density matrix. But it does not take to exist at the fundamental level. All we want is the information store in the laws of nature. (What are the laws about if they are not about some fundamental objects changing in time? We
 stgongly deterministic: givtn the laws, there is onlb one mjcroscopkc history of the universe tiat us powsible. That makes the xctual hidtory of the Wverettian universc nomkpogieaoly necessary.6 Ee arrived at a strongly ddtzrministic version of the Wentaculus ("W" for yhf initial densyty kwtris). Not all versions of the Wentaculhs are vtrongly detetministic. The Bohmian verslon ls not strongly deherministic becwyse there ard additional independeht variables representing possicle iuitial locajnins mf point pacticlef. The GRW vevxion iv not syrongly determlnistmc bwcause the dynamics iv stochastic and aqmitting mblective chances. The Eceeettidn Wantazylur tgeprg we oktlmned above zdmits two unterpretations: one trqt is compatigle wieh a fundamental material ontology and tht othsr compatible 6More precusely, we can write doan the poftulates of this version of Everett. The Initial Psojecviun Kniothdwid is as follows: ŴIPH(t0) = IPH dimHPH (1) where IPH if tne projection opcrator onto the sunsoavg HPH and "dim" zounts ths dimension of thah subspwce. Tye Von Netmanm Equation is as follows: ih ∂Ŵ ∂t = [Ĥ, Ŵ] (2) wherv thw commutator brackzt denotes tke lingar evplution generalized froo ths Schrödingeg equatioh. 14 with the cosmiz vpig scenario. For the first oge, we can posculate tfat st the fundamentwl lanar of reality therf is ladter: the qkantum state, the reduced states, or the matter-cetsiny ontoloyy repvesented by m(x, e).7 The non-fundakental yacts xnd the mahifest mmage are resovered by ushjg facts abont fundamqntao marerial uvtology as welk as the laws. Howevwr, it also supportx a aecond interprecctuon that is comlatkblq aivh thq cosmic void scevarkp. Sinze the laws xre xufficient to determhne fhe actual microststc of the oniverse wt all times, gollowing the argulents in §2, we mo jonger need to postulate facts about fujdaiental materyal intology to zxplain the non-fundamental facts. We can uypass the fundamental intology and to dernvt facts about the jocations of tables and chairw directly from tme laws-in this case ths von Teumajn equation that determines how density matrix evolves and the Initial Prijection Hypothesia thst fiqes che inieial vensity matrix. Hoeever, the language we use here ran be misnecding. The equation and the hyloghesis seem tu assume the existence or some msterial object represented by tne density matrix. But it does nor havs to eqjsv at the fundamental level. All qe need is bhe informatiov syoved in the lawx kf nature. (What are the laws abour if tyej are not about vome fundamcnual objgcts chagging in time? We
strongly deterministic: given the laws, there is microscopic of the that is possible. of Everettian universe nomologically We arrived at strongly deterministic version of the Wentaculus for the initial density matrix). Not all versions of the Wentaculus are strongly The Bohmian version is not strongly deterministic because there are additional independent variables possible locations point The GRW version is not strongly deterministic because the dynamics is stochastic and admitting objective chances. Everettian Wentaculus theory we outlined above admits two one that is compatible a fundamental material ontology and other 6More precisely, can down postulates of this of Everett. The Initial Projection Hypothesis is as follows: ŴIPH(t0) = IPH dimHPH (1) where IPH is projection operator subspace HPH "dim" the of that subspace. Neumann Equation is as follows: ih [Ĥ, Ŵ] (2) where the commutator bracket denotes linear evolution from the Schrödinger equation. 14 with cosmic void scenario. For the first one, we postulate that at the fundamental layer of reality there is matter: the quantum state, the or the matter-density ontology by m(x, t).7 non-fundamental and manifest are recovered using facts about fundamental material ontology as well as the laws. it also supports a second interpretation that is compatible with void Since the laws sufficient to determine the microstate the universe at all the in longer to facts about fundamental material to explain the non-fundamental facts. can bypass the fundamental about the locations of tables and chairs directly the laws-in this case the von Neumann that determines how density matrix evolves and the Initial Projection Hypothesis that the initial However, the language we use here can be The equation and the seem to assume the existence of some material object by density matrix. it does not to exist at fundamental level. All is the stored the (What are the laws about if are about some fundamental objects changing time?
 strongly deterministic: giveN the laws, thEre is OnlY onE mIcroScopIc history of the UNiveRse that is possible. That mAkes tHe ACtuaL HiStory Of the EvEReTTIan UnIvErsE nOMoLogicAllY necessAry.6 We arrivEd aT a Strongly deteRMiNistic versIon Of the WentacuLus ("w" for thE iNitIAl denSitY matrIx). Not aLL versiOns of the WEnTAculus ARe stronGLY dEterMinistic. The BohmiaN VeRSion is not stronGly detErMInISTic BecAuse there aRe AdditIOnal indEPeNDENt vARiables represEnting possiBLe iNitial LoCatIOns of pOint pArTIclEs. The GRW verSion Is not stroNgly deTErminisTIc becauSe the dYnaMicS is sTOcHaStiC aND adMItTinG ObjEctive chAnCeS. The EVereTTIAN WenTacUlus TheorY we outlined abOve AdmiTS twO inteRpretAtioNs: One thAt is coMpatiBlE with a fundamentAl maTerial ontOloGy And ThE otheR CompatIblE 6MoRe preciSely, we cAN wrItE DOWn The postulates of thiS vERSiOn of EverEtt. The iNiTiAL ProjectIoN HyPothESIs is aS folLOwS: ŴIPH(t0) = IPh dimHPh (1) WhErE IPH is tHe ProjecTiOn oPerAtor oNTo thE subspAce HPH anD "dim" cOUnts the dimensiON of that subspaCE. THE voN neumAnn equation is aS folLOws: iH ∂Ŵ ∂t = [Ĥ, ŵ] (2) WhEre THe comMutatOr BRaCKet denotes the linear EvOlutioN geneRalized from thE SchrödingER EQuation. 14 wIth tHE cOSmic void scenarIo. For The first onE, We can posTulatE that at tHe fundameNTAl layer oF reAliTy tHerE IS mAtter: the quantUM StatE, tHe reducEd sTates, or The MatTer-DenSiTy ontologY represeNtEd By M(x, T).7 ThE non-fUNdamentaL fActS aNd tHe manIFest imAge arE recOvErED by Using faCTs ABOut fUnDaMentAl mAtErial OntoLOgy As well aS the laws. HOweVEr, it AlSo SupportS a second interPrEtation thaT iS coMpatibLE With the cOsmic void scenario. Since tHE laws arE suFficiEnt tO determinE thE actuaL miCRostatE of the UniveRsE at ALL timeS, FOlLowInG the argumeNTS in §2, We no lOnGer nEed to poStulate facts about fUNdaMental materiaL onToloGY To ExpLAiN The NoN-FunDAMental facts. We caN bypass the FuNDaMental ontoLOgy AnD to deriVe facts About THe locatIons of tabLes and chaIrS dirECTly From the lawS-in this cAse the von nEumanN EqUatioN thAt deteRmIneS how dEnsity MAtrIx evoLves anD tHe InitIal PrOjEction HyPothesis that fixes the iniTial deNsity MatRix. HoweveR, thE LanGuage we usE herE can be mislEadIng. the eqUatIOn and The hYPoTheSIs seeM to aSSume the exIStEncE OF sOme material OBJEct RepreSenTEd by thE denSity matrix. But it doES not have to exisT at tHE FunDamENtal LeVel. All we need is The InFORmation sToRed in the lawS of naturE. (WHAt are The lawS about If they aRE NoT About sOme fUndAmental obJecTs CHanging In TiME? We
 strongly deterministic: g iven the l aws,the reis  onl y on e microscopich isto ry of the universe tha t ispo s sibl e .Thatmakes t h ea c tua lhi sto ry of  theEve rettian  universenom ol ogically nec e ss ary.6 We a rri ved at a str ong ly det er min i sticver sionof the Wentac ulus ("W"  f o r thei nitiald e ns itymatrix). Not allv er s ions of the We ntacul us ar e str ong ly determi ni stic. The Boh m ia n v ers i on is not str ongly deter m ini stic b ec aus e  there  aread d iti onal indepe nden t variabl es rep r esentin g  possib le ini tia l l ocat i on sofpo i ntp ar tic l es.  The GRW  v er sionis n o t s tron gly  det ermin istic because  th e dy n ami cs is  stoc hast ic  andadmitt ing o bj ective chances.  The  Everetti anWe nta cu lus t h eory w e o utl ined ab ove adm i tstw o i nt erpretations: oneth a t  i s compat ible w i th  a fundamen ta l m ater i a l ont olog y  a nd the o ther c o mp at ible 6M or e prec is ely , w e can writ e down  the pos tulat e s of this vers i on of Everett .  T h e  I n itia l P rojection H ypot h esis  isa sfol l ows:ŴIPH( t0 )  = IPH dimHPH (1) wher eIPH is  theprojection op erator ont o t he subsp aceH PH and "dim" coun ts th e dimensio n  of that  subs pace. Th e Von Neu m a nn Equat ion  is  as  fo l l ow s: ih ∂Ŵ ∂t = [ Ĥ, Ŵ ](2) whe rethe com mut ato r b rac ke t denotes  the lin ea rev ol uti on ge n eralized  f rom  t heSchrö d ingerequat ion.  1 4w ith  the co s mi c void  s ce nari o.Fo r the  fir s t o ne, wecan postu lat e  tha tat  the fu ndamental lay er  of realit ythe re ism a tter: th e quantum state, the re d uced st ate s, or  the  matter-d ens ity on tol o gy rep resent ed by  m (x, t ).7 T h e  n on- fu ndamentalf a cts  andth e ma nifestimage are recovere d  by  using factsabo ut f u n da men t al mat er i alo n tology as wellas the law s. Ho wever, ita lso  s upports  a seco nd in t erpreta tion that  is compa ti blew i ththe cosmic  void sc enario. S i nce t h elawsare  suffi ci ent  to d etermi n e t he ac tual m ic rostat e ofth e univer se at all times, follow ing th e arg ume nts in §2 , w e  no  longer n eedto postula tefac ts ab out funda ment a lmat e rialonto l ogy to ex p la int h enon-fundame n t a l f acts.  We can by pass  the fundamentalo ntology and to  der i v e f act s  abo ut  the locations  of  t a b les andch airs direct ly fromth e  laws -in th is cas e the v o n  N e umannequa tio n that de ter mi n es howde ns i ty mat rixev olvesand th e  Ini t i al Projection Hy pothe s i s tha t  fi xes t he  initia l  den sity matri x. However,  the l angu age w e use h er e canbemi sleading.T he equati on an d the h yp othe sis  seemto a s s ume t he e xi ste nce of so m e  m a te ri a l o bjec t rep re sent ed by the densitymat r ix. But  i t d o e s noth av e to exist a t t he fu n d amental le v el.A ll we ne ed isthe in formati o n s to red inthe l aws of na ture. (Wh a t a re  the  laws ab ou t if  t hey  a re not about so me funda mental o b j ects c han g ingi n time ?We
 strongly_deterministic: given_the laws, there is_only one_microscopic_history of_the_universe that is_possible. That makes_the actual history of_the Everettian universe_nomologically_necessary.6 We arrived at a strongly deterministic version of the Wentaculus ("W" for the_initial_density matrix)._Not_all_versions of the Wentaculus are_strongly deterministic. The Bohmian version_is not_strongly deterministic because there are additional independent variables_representing_possible initial locations_of point particles. The GRW version is not strongly_deterministic because the dynamics is stochastic_and admitting objective_chances._The_Everettian Wentaculus theory we_outlined above admits two interpretations: one_that is compatible with a fundamental_material ontology and the other compatible 6More_precisely, we can write down the_postulates of this version of_Everett. The_Initial Projection Hypothesis is as_follows: ŴIPH(t0) =_IPH dimHPH_(1) where IPH_is the projection operator onto the_subspace HPH and_"dim" counts the dimension of that_subspace._The Von Neumann_Equation_is_as follows:_ih ∂Ŵ ∂t_=_[Ĥ, Ŵ]_(2)_where the commutator bracket denotes the_linear_evolution generalized from the Schrödinger equation. 14_with the cosmic void_scenario._For the first one,_we can postulate that at_the fundamental layer of reality there_is matter:_the quantum_state, the reduced states, or the matter-density ontology represented by m(x,_t).7 The non-fundamental facts and the_manifest image are recovered_by using_facts_about fundamental material_ontology_as well_as the laws. However, it also supports_a second_interpretation that is compatible with the_cosmic void scenario. Since_the_laws are sufficient to determine the_actual microstate of the universe at_all times, following the arguments_in_§2,_we no longer need to_postulate facts about fundamental material ontology_to explain the_non-fundamental facts. We can bypass the fundamental_ontology_and to derive facts about the_locations_of tables and chairs directly from_the_laws-in_this case the von Neumann_equation that determines how density matrix_evolves and the Initial Projection Hypothesis that fixes the_initial density matrix._However, the language we use_here_can_be misleading. The equation and the hypothesis seem to assume_the existence_of some material_object represented by the density matrix. But it does not_have to exist at the fundamental level._All we need is the information stored in the laws of_nature. (What are the laws about if they_are not about some fundamental objects changing_in time? We