On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 2:42 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/21/2020 5:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > I know that they argue in this way. But that is just say "It must be this > way or else my theory fails." > > My argument against this is quite secure. Linear evolution via the SWE and > Everett means that there is only one "relative state" or branch for each > term in the original superposition. There is no room for a "weight" in such > linear evolution. Looking at repeated trials simply highlights this fact -- > the sequence of bit strings is necessarily independent of the original > amplitudes -- there are no "weights", and MWI advocates are simply fooling > themselves. > > > I don't think it's so cut and dried as that. In Zurek's envariance based > idea of measurement he says the relative amplitude of the system must > carryover to the apparatus in order to maintain unitary evolution; c.f. > III.E of the attached. It essentially appeals to the ensemble of possible > pure states consistent with the system+apparatus reduced density matrix in > order to avoid your objection. > I am not sure that I completely understand what Zurek has done here. The problem of carrying the initial amplitdues through a sequence of repeated trials is opaque to me. Zurek seems to rely on the number of envariant environmental states somehow. I will have to look into this further: it all needs a little untangling. I can't quite see how the weights carry through repeated measurements -- the state is surely a new state in each branched world. 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/CAFxXSLQ3xDwGaSg8wUEweT%3Dh%2BncYeD0MJE8jyTmn6CgPN8jhRQ%40mail.gmail.com.
