On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 4:30 AM smitra <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10-02-2020 08:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > This proves that Everett's approach from the SE, where there is only > > one branch for each possible outcome in a single trial, cannot account > > for the way in which experimental results are used in practice. Given > > Everett, experiments cannot reveal anything at all about the original > > state. So Everett fails as a scientific theory. End of story. Period. > > Nothing more to be said. > > This no go argument against Everett has no bearing on the Many Worlds > aspect of QM. Clearly one cannot ignore amplitudes without getting a > contradiction with the probabilistic interpretation of QM. >
The probabilistic interpretation of QM arose in a single-world, collapse, model. Attempting to graft probability on to many-worlds is a failure, as my arguments against Everett show. If the data for any sequence of trials are independent of the amplitudes, then some ad hoc probability interpretation of the amplitudes is not going to affect the data. But the data is what we use to infer that Born rule probabilities are what we observe. This is a single-world result. 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/CAFxXSLTDGwRy-SSyzKi%2BKnsiZnvPLCboPhA_pRgWhLyxdOhnNg%40mail.gmail.com.
