On Thursday, October 30, 2025 at 5:56:24 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Thursday, October 30, 2025 at 12:17:52 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote: On Wednesday, October 29, 2025 at 11:37:00 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/29/2025 9:57 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, October 25, 2025 at 10:21:00 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, October 25, 2025 at 10:17:57 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, October 25, 2025 at 5:25:07 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: Did you miss the part about MWI advocates using the Born rule in their interpretation? Without it, the MWI is the same as the Born rule when p=0.5, no matter what the Schroedinger equation says p is. It's what MWI advocates dismiss as "branch counting". Brent *I'm not sure I understand your comment. You seem to be claiming the Many Worlders get the same result as the collapse model for a special case of p=0.5. But do they get the same result in THIS-WORLD for the double slit, which collapses to a huge number of outcomes? If not, then the MWI does not satisfy Born's rule. AG * When p=0.5 branch counting is the same as the Born rule. In a double slit experiment the probability of each slit is 0.5 and all you get is an interference pattern, no counts of this vs. that. Brent *CMIIAW, but Born's rule is used on a wf, and the wf I have in mind exists after the test particle goes through the slits. I don't see that the probability of 0.5 of going through a slit has anything to do with a wf. We can apply basic logic to get that result. AG * *And 0.5 depends on modeling the test entity as particle, which it is not if which-way isn't being observed. AG* *To clarify: since the MWI is a no-collapes model, I thoughT we could compare a collapse model, Copenhagen, with a no-collapse model, and look for discrepencies in what they predict. I also thought we could use the double slit experiment to do this comparison. But now I think this is impossible because the wf is never observed, so there doesn't seem any way to distinguish the cases I'd like to compare. Further, to get interference in the double slit experiiment, we must NOT do the which-way measurement. THEREFORE, we can NOT assume a probability of 0.5 of the test particle going through each slit, since this model is strictly reserved for the model of doing a which-way measurement. Maybe you can explain again how the MWI incorporates Born's rule. TY, AG* If the probability is not the same at each slit, then where the waves are 180deg out of phase, where we expect dark bands, the probability amplitudes won't cancel and the bands won't be perfectly dark. Brent *Can you elaborate the exact relationship of your response, to my previous post? Sorry, but it's over my head. AG* *When there's no which-way measurement, the electron is a wave and that wave goes through both slits equally. Is this what you mean by a probability of 0.5 through each slit? If so, I think it's a non-standard usage. AG * *If there's no which-way measurement, the electron is a wave and goes through both slits simultaneously. In this case one cannot assign a probability of 0.5 for each slit. 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/6b01d31b-1328-4f55-9be4-006a06fd58f8n%40googlegroups.com.
