On 10/17/2025 7:54 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "falsified". QM is a probabilistic theory, so simply showing it is wrong about one particular experiment can be marked up to statistics. But if you mean statistically falsified at a high confidence level, sure.On 10/17/2025 5:42 AM, Alan Grayson wroteTo 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. AGNo 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*
Brent -- 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/3b3ea278-3ac5-478a-95ad-2b71efde5f2a%40gmail.com.
