On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:46 PM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:39 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:59 AM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou < >>>> stath...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou < >>>>>> stath...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Born rule allows you to calculate the probability of what >>>>>>> outcome you will see in a Universe where all outcomes occur. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You are still conflating incompatible theories. The Born rule is a >>>>>> rule for calculating probabilities from the wave function -- it says >>>>>> nothing about worlds or existence. MWI is a theory about the existence of >>>>>> many worlds. These theories are incompatible, and should not be >>>>>> conflated. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> “The Born rule is a rule for calculating probabilities from the wave >>>>> function -- it says nothing about worlds or existence” -and- “MWI is a >>>>> theory about the existence of many worlds” are not incompatible >>>>> statements. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps that is the wrong way to look at it. The linearity of the >>>> Schrodinger equation implies that the individuals on all branches are the >>>> same: there is nothing to distinguish one of them as "you" and the others >>>> as mere shadows or zombies. In other words, they are all "you". So you are >>>> the person on the branch with all spins up and your probability of seeing >>>> this result is one, since this branch certainly exists, and, by linearity, >>>> "you" are the individual on that branch. This is inconsistent with the >>>> claim that the Born rule gives the probability that "you" will see some >>>> particular result. As we have seen, the probability that "you" will see all >>>> ups in one, whereas the Born probability for this result is 1/2^N. These >>>> probability estimates are incompatible. >>>> >>> >>> >>> According to relativity you exist in all times across your lifespan (and >>> all times are equally really). Yet you are only ever aware of being in one >>> time and in one place. I think this tells us more about the limitations of >>> our neurology than it reveals about the extent or nature of reality. If a >>> copy of me is created on Mars, the me know Earth doesn't magically become >>> aware of it. >>> >> >> And how do we select out the present moment from the block universe? >> > > I believe all apparent selections are merely indexical illusions. 'Here' > is no more real than 'There', 'Now' is no more real than 'Then', 'I' is no > more real than 'Him'. We only consider these things special due to the > position we happen to be in at the time a consideration is made, but all > such considerations exist and are equally valid. All 'Heres' are real, all > 'Nows' are real, all points of view are 'Is'. Only, as Shrodigner says, we > aren't in a position to survey them all at once. > What a load of fanciful nonsense! This goes no way towards explaining our experience. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRrWGtxdn4S1fs8QvJhKd5fdRg0g_ioN5Yga6JK%3D4uLWQ%40mail.gmail.com.
