On 08-02-2020 05:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
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
Stochastic single word theories make predictions that violate those of
quantum mechanics. If the MWI (in the general sense of there existing a
multiverse rather than any details of how to derive the Born rule) is
not correct, then that's hard to reconcile with known experimental
results. New physics that so far has never been observed needs to be
assumed just to get rid of the Many Worlds. Also, this new physics
should appear not at the as of yet unprobed high energies where the
known laws of physics could plausibly break down, instead it would have
to appear at the mesoscopic or macroscopic scale where the laws of
physics are essentially fixed.
Saibal
--
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/73fa92825a8475ec6877c23d54ca9fac%40zonnet.nl.
