On 13 Apr 2015, at 09:49, LizR wrote:
On 13 April 2015 at 17:16, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]>
wrote:
LizR wrote:
Does the MWI predict an infinite number of branches from any given
measurement? I'm not sure (from FOR) that the MWI predicts branches
at all, so much as differentiation within a continuum? Maybe you
could expand on this. Why (to keep it simple) would a quantum
experiment with two possible outcomes not reproduce the correct
probabilities in the MWI? (Or is that a special case where it would?)
No, MWI does not predict an infinite number of branches for any
measurement. It predicts a number of branches equal to the number of
possible distinct outcomes for the measurement.
So how does the MWI deal with a measurement with a 3/4 probability
of outcome 1 and a 1/4 probability of outcome 2? This was Larry
Niven's objection to many worlds back around the time he wrote "All
the myriad ways" and it seems to me that someone else would have
noticed it in the intervening 50 years (or whatever) ! How come
anyone takes MWI seriously if it's actually supposed to work like
this?
The classical duplication model of step 3 cannot reproduce quantum
probabilities because it relies on branch counting.
Well that's OK because it isn't attempting to reproduce quantum
probabilities at that point, as far as I know.
Yes. Counting the branching stop to make any sense already at step
seven. It works only in the ideal protocol of the first six steps.
Getting directly the physical MWI can perhaps be partially done, but
then we need to introduce thought experiment with amnesia, to merge
the computations, and get the interference.
This is not necessary given that we redo the thing mathematically, and
indeed derive some quantum logic, without needing to introduce non
monotonical logic (to get amnesy).
Now, I certainly encourage people interested to try to get most of the
quantum "without math" by adding thought experience with amnesia. Good
exercise. That can be used also to understand that personal identity
is an indexical "illusion" (like "now", "here", "this" "that", etc.).
It is *purely* phenomenological, like matter should be after step 8.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
