On 10/17/2025 5:42 AM, Alan Grayson wrote
To use Born's rule, you need a wf.
Not if you already know the probability of |1> and |0> which values I just
assumed. Do you need me to take the square roots and write down the
corresponding wave function, 0.949|0> + 0.316|1>
*So, IMO, we need a computer simulation which systematically tests a huge
number of probabilities, and their wf's, to determine any difference
between collapse and no-collapse interpretations. I suspect the latter will
fail Born's rule in every case, falsifying the no-collapse interpretation.
Also, one need to do this experiment in this-world only, since the worlds
of the MWI are indistinguishable. AG *
*So you're not interested in possibly falsifying the MWI? Your attitude is
puzzling. AG *
What is the wf one gets from your h-t scenarios? That is, how do you
calulate Born's rule in your scenario. Why is this so hard to understand?
For who?
if we have two ways to do the calculation, with collapse and no-collapse in
this-world, and we get different answers, then the MWI is falsified
(assuming that Born's rule give the correct answer). We can share the
prize. AG
No because those aren't the only two possibilities. In fact advocates of
MWI also use the Born rule as a "weight" for the various worlds, but
brushing under the rug the fact that this weight is just the probability of
that world happening. They don't like that because they want all the
worlds to happen, so they think of it as the probability that you
experience that world...even though you experience all of them.
*How can we experience all the worlds? We only experience one world, this
world. AG *
Why don't you ask somebody who believes in MWI, instead of me?
*Because you structured your scenario as if multiple worlds can make your
measurements. But AFAICT, that's not what the true believers claim. Anyway,
doing all measurements in one world, this world, seems sufficient to
possibly falsify the interpretation. IMO, it needs to be falsified, so this
false path to reality can finally be put in the dust bin of history. AG*
But it can't be falsified if you add the Born rule to it, which advocates
of MWI do. They just apply it to what they call "self-locating
uncertainty", which I think is double-talk for "the only world that
happened".
If you think it can be falsified, write out the experiment that will do so.
Brent
*Yes, now that I understand your coin tossing model, I believe I know how
it can done, and when I write it up, I'll ask AI to write the program and
do the calculation. I think if we work only in this-world, we might be able
to show that the collapse model, which we know gives the right result, will
differ from the no-collapse model. Do you agree that if no-collapse is
falsified in this world, this is sufficient for the proof that it's
nonsense? AG*
--
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/81dff224-2de6-475c-8c55-05f5df947b8en%40googlegroups.com.
