> On 18 Feb 2020, at 02:37, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:37 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > On 2/17/2020 4:09 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 9:46 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> <everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> >> wrote: >> >> It's another way of expressing my objection that while alpha=0.5 produces a >> split into two worlds, alpha= 0.499 produces a split into a thousand worlds. >> >> You are harking back to the branch counting idea. I agree that that is a >> natural way to think of outcomes having different weights -- by being >> associated with different numbers of branches. The problem, of course, is >> that this is not compatible with linear evolution according to the >> Schrodinger equation. Since the selling point of Everett was supposed to be >> "The SWE and nothing else!", anything along these lines is contrary to the >> hype. >> >> >> But proponents of MWI like Sean Carroll and Bruno, essentially assume there >> are already (infinitely?) many branches which, prior to the measurement, are >> identical at the macroscopic level, but which get projected (split) onto >> orthogonal subspaces by a measurement. >> >> >> I know that Bruno talks in these terms, but I may have missed something in >> Carroll's book because I don't see that idea coming to the fore there. > > It's implicit in the diagram you posted from his book. > > ??? I didn't post any diagrams from his book. There is the branching tree > diagram on page 134, which is essentially just my generation of all possible > binary strings. Then there is the 'weight' diagram on page 148, in which he > talks about worlds getting "thinner" as branching proceeds. Neither seems to > me to indicate a pre-existing plethora of worlds that progressively > distinguished by branching. > > ........ > >> So I don't think Sean is into branch counting. His actual argument is little >> more than a decision to put the Born rule in by hand, > > Right. Bruno however independently hypothesizes a big number of branches as > computational threads in his Universal Dovetailer...however, he apparently > can't get the Born rule except in the 1 and 0 cases. > >> since it is clear that linear evolution cannot give results that are >> sensitive to the coefficients (amplitudes). It is very difficult to make >> sense of his idea of branch 'weights' or 'thicknesses' when these do not >> change the actual nature of a branch, and are not visible to the 1p view >> from within the branch. > > From within a branch there is never anything visible except sequences of > results. > > Yes. And it is from those experimental results that we infer probabilities. > The Born rule is just a way to relate observed frequencies to the theoretical > wave function. The frequencies came first. How else did we know what the wave > function was? > You can make up God's eye view (I don't call it 3p since 3p is a possible > view) hypotheses in which the sequence is created by some deterministic > process, like a random number generator, which experimenters will never be > able to infer within the life of the universe; and then say it's not a > probability. But I think that is not a sufficiently instrumentalist view of > what "probability" means. I think of probability in science as like energy, > it takes lots of different forms: relative frequency, propensity, measure,... > It's essential characteristic is that its a way to model > uncertainty...whether there is some underlying certainty or not. > > I am not sure what you are getting at here. Probability relates to > uncertainty in some form or another.
OK. > And if the probabilities are to be objective, They have to be at least first person plural. We should be able to make bet. But that is the case if instead of duplicating the H-guy, you duplicate the H-Guy + the person (the witness) with whom he make a bet. In that case, if you bet “W”, and the witness bet “M" then in W you win the bet, and in M you lost the bet. In the irate case, you recover the idea that by using the Pascal Triangle, you can maximise your benefits, and this shows that we can use the Dutch Argument to define some probabilities in simple duplication scenario (to be sure, the real case will be in arithmetic where such simple case scenario can be shown to never occur, and that is why the math is a bit more sophisticated there). > in the sense that they are independent of what we think, then epistemic > probabilities are not really adequate to the task of explaining fundamental > physics. The problem is only that to use physics to make some first person description, you need to abandon the brain-mind identity principle. It is simply a fact that all computational (and thus all conscious state, with mechanism) are executed by an infinity of universal machine/number in arithmetic, and the machine cannot know which one, but they can know that, and they can predict that if they observe nature below their level of substitution, they have to see something blurry describing a collection of “parallel” computations. > > That is, at heart, why I think that the world is fundamentally stochastic -- > measurement results are determined by some underlying stochastic processes in > a single world. That is the hidden variable idea of de Broglie and Bohm. It leads to abandon physical realism, or to accept FTL influence. > Many world ideas simply do not help. I don’t see how to avoid the many computations which already exists in all interpretation of elementary arithmetic, unless you bet on some magic, or actual (and rather special) infinities in nature. And it seems to me that QM confirms that aspect of the phenomenological (first person plural) of reality. To make a world existing and unique, is the kind of thing that the “everything" list is skeptical about, at lest at the start. “Nothing" and “everything" are simpler than “something”. Nature likes to multiplies things, like the water molecules, the self-multiplying living beings, etc. Bruno > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSKFwz8O4omrong6ugsPL-UWUUfOO1s%3DVvHab5DW_5WVg%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSKFwz8O4omrong6ugsPL-UWUUfOO1s%3DVvHab5DW_5WVg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9E908632-B9E8-40E1-89E8-D98828590D56%40ulb.ac.be.
