On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:41 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/11/2020 4:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Each individual sequence of head/tail would also occur with probability, > in the corresponding WM scenario, and in the coin tossing experience. > > In the MWI, what you describe is what has motivated the introduction of a > frequency operator, and that is the right thing to do in QM. I think you > might confuse the first person and the third person points of view, in the > WM-scenario and in the MWI (which is coherent with your non-mechanist > stance). > > > What is a frequency operator? Your WM thought experiment models a case in > which the probabilities are equal. MWI seems implausible if it splits into > two worlds when P(W)=P(M)=0.5 but splits into a thousand worlds when > P(W)=0.501 and P(M)=0.499. > Such a split would seem to be necessary in order for the data to reflect the amplitudes in the original superposition. The trouble is that such a split is completely arbitrary and ad hoc, in addition to the fact that it is not possible under unitary evolution. Bruno has made a lot of posts following my original argument. He has thrown a lot of mirrors around, and generated much smoke. but he has never addressed the fundamental issues about unitary evolution that lead to the downfall of MWI as a theory of physics. 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/CAFxXSLQMBme0icYR4huCRkPvqx2BeXM1oG0y%3DmDb5mTLQij6GA%40mail.gmail.com.
