True, because we can only measure to finite precision. However that doesn't deal with what might be called the "1% problem".
On Tuesday, 21 October 2025 at 08:55:50 UTC+13 Brent Meeker wrote: > Measurements will always produce integer ratios as estimates of > probabilities. If the estimate is sufficiently close to the predicted > value it is considered consistent with the Born rule. We can never measure > exactly real number values. > > Brent > > > On 10/20/2025 12:17 AM, Liz R wrote: > > If we assume that there are distinct universes which branch, then the Born > rule isn't going to be satisfied (at least, not without some sort of > contrived epicycles) in any situation where the probabilities aren't in > some integer ratio, e.g. if they're irrational. If on the other hand we > assume that there is a continuum of identical universes that is partitioned > by a measurement (as David Deutsch suggests in "The Fabric of Reality") > then the partitioning can be as finely divided as you like. However, > continua are possibly problematic in actual physical systems, like > infinities, that is to say, not realistic (because they effectively involve > dividing by (uncountable?) infinity). The idea that spacetime can't be > infinitely warped - that singularities are unphysical - is related to the > idea that continua can't exist. I assume a theory of quantum gravity would > not allow either. > > In the absence of continua the Born rule can only be satisfied in a > multiverse if all measurements split the universes into some integer ratio. > This seems rather arbitrary - a measurement with a 1% chance of result X > and 99% of result Y produces 100 branches (99 indistinguishable from each > other), while a measurement with a 50-50 chance produces 2. > > A multiverse has philosophical appeal - the string landscape answers the > question "why these laws of physics?" while the quantum multiverse answers > the question "why this history?" However as far as I know there is no > strong scientific (testable, refutable, etc) evidence for either. > > On Monday, 13 October 2025 at 14:56:05 UTC+13 Alan Grayson wrote: > >> Correct me if I'm mistaken, but as far as I know the wf has never been >> observed; only the observations of the system it represents. This being the >> case, in a large number of trials. Born's rulle will be satisfied >> regardless of which interpretation an observer affirms; either the MWI with >> no collapse of the wf, or Copenhagen with collapse of the wf. That is, >> since we can only observe the statistical results of an experiment from a >> this-world perspective, and we see that Born's rule is satisfied, so I >> don't see how it can be argued that the rule fails to be satisfied if the >> MWI is assumed. I think the same can be said about the other worlds assumed >> by the MWI, namely, that IF we could measure their results, the rule would >> likewise be satisfied.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/06dade74-6bdc-460f-91d5-ff38a8b26e94n%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/06dade74-6bdc-460f-91d5-ff38a8b26e94n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- 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/5fac5d40-7a6e-477b-b4f4-dafdd877cb2en%40googlegroups.com.
