On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 3:15 PM Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 at 11:16, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 4:33 AM Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 15:59, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> This argument from Kent completely destroys Everett's attempt to derive >>>> the Born rule from his many-worlds approach to quantum mechanics. In fact, >>>> it totally undermines most attempts to derive the Born rule from any >>>> branching theory, and undermines attempts to justify ignoring branches on >>>> which the Born rule weights are disconfirmed. In the many-worlds case, >>>> recall, all observers are aware that other observers with other data must >>>> exist, but each is led to construct a spurious measure of importance that >>>> favours their own observations against the others', and this leads to an >>>> obvious absurdity. In the one-world case, observers treat what actually >>>> happened as important, and ignore what didn't happen: this doesn't lead to >>>> the same difficulty. >>>> >>> Nevertheless Many Worlds is at least logically possible. What would the >>> inhabitants expect to see, if not the world we currently see? >>> >> >> >> Many-worlds might be logically possible, but it is also completely >> useless. If every possible outcome from any experiment/interaction actually >> occurs, then the total data that results is independent of any probability >> measure. Consequently, one cannot use data from experiments to infer >> anything about any underlying probabilities, even if such exist at all. In >> particular, Many-worlds is incompatible with the Born rule, and with the >> overwhelming amount of evidence confirming the Born rule in quantum >> mechanics. So Many-worlds (and Everett) is a failed theory, disconfirmed by >> every experiment ever performed. If Many-worlds is correct, then the >> inhabitants have no basis on which to have any expectations about what they >> might see. >> > > So are you suggesting that the inhabitants would just see chaos? > No, I am suggesting that Many-worlds is a failed theory, unable to account for everyday experience. A stochastic single-world theory is perfectly able to account for what we see. Bruce -- 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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRayauDsetT9onmUf1%2B%2BN3CZ%2B8V%3DuGS_3aSXL3E%3Dc4SXA%40mail.gmail.com.
