On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:11 AM smitra <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16-02-2020 06:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > 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. >
No. And it has not been suggested that it will. But that is just to take a single-world approach: statistics work fine in each branch of the multiverse (each world), but the concepts of probability and the Born rule break down when every result is obtained in experiments because the data obtained in each world are independent of the amplitudes of the original state. 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/CAFxXSLSehUHg%3DEYsvQLpNay5SLU7mCdYj7R7Cq8Ov8RWfwgABQ%40mail.gmail.com.
