On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/5/2020 2:01 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 8:17 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On 3/5/2020 3:07 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> there is no "weight" that differentiates different branches. >>> >>> >>> Then the Born rule is false, and the whole of QM is false. >>> >> >> No, QM is not false. It is only Everett that is disconfirmed by >> experiment. >> >> Everett + mechanism + Gleason do solve the core of the problem. >>> >> >> No. As discussed with Brent, the Born rule cannot be derived within the >> framework of Everettian QM. Gleason's theorem is useful only if you have a >> prior proof of the existence of a probability distribution. And you cannot >> achieve that within the Everettian context. Even postulating the Born rule >> ad hoc and imposing it by hand does not solve the problems with Everettian >> QM. >> >> What needs to be derived or postulated is a probability measure on >> Everett's multiple worlds. I agree that it can't be derived. But I don't >> see that it can't be postulated that at each split the branches are given a >> weight (or a multiplicity) so that over the ensemble of branches the Born >> rule is statistically supported, i.e. almost all sequences will satisfy the >> Born rule in the limit of long sequences. >> > > Unfortunately, that does not work. Linearity means that any weight that > you assign to particular result remains outside the strings, so data within > each string are independent of any such assigned weights. The weights would > not, therefore, show up in any experimental results. The weights can only > work in a single-world version of the model. > > > True. But the multiplicity still works. > NO, it doesn't. Just think about what each observer sees from within his branch. 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/CAFxXSLSnDmp3r2KkOg6%2BxJk937Ni5Tn2zx%3DPMYL8ZAp-D7yrHg%40mail.gmail.com.
