On 16-02-2020 06:34, Bruce Kellett wrote:
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
It's only a failure when attempting to describe the state in the
multiverse in that particular way where you can argue that the
amplitudes don't matter. It's not an argument against the multiverse
idea, as whether or not you have a large number of copies should not
affect the statistical outcome observed in any experiment.
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/30df9a08a6de2024bcb221edb08a6053%40zonnet.nl.
