On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM UTC+11 [email protected] wrote:
> On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-7 [email protected] wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 5:21 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> *> The MWI doesn't guarantee that these subsequent measurements, for >>> subsequent horse races say, are occurring in the SAME OTHER worlds as >>> trials progress, to get ensembles in those OTHER worlds. * >> >> >> I don't know what you mean by "SAME OTHER worlds", the same as what? In >> one world Alan Grayson remembers having seen the electron go left, in >> another world Alan Grayson remembers having seen the electron go right, >> other than that the two worlds are absolutely identical, so which one was >> the "SAME OTHER world"? >> >> > You seem to avoid the fact that no where does the MWI guarantee [...] >> >> >> Quantum mechanics is not in the guarantee business, it deals with >> probability. >> >> *> I don't think you understand my point, which isn't complicated. * >> >> >> Yes, your point is very simple indeed, but the word simple can have 2 >> meanings, one of them is complementary and the other not so much. >> > > In first trial, the MWI postulates other worlds comes into existence. Same > other worlds in second trial? Same other worlds in third trial, etc? Where > does the MWI assert these other worlds are the SAME other worlds? Unless it > does, you only have ONE measurement in each of these worlds. No probability > exists in these other worlds since no ensemble of measurements exist in > these other world. AG > You grossly misunderstand MWI. There are no "same other" worlds. The worlds that arise at each trial are different in precisely one way and one way only: the eigenvalue recorded for the experiment. The different eigenvalues will then give rise to a "wave of differentiations" as the consequences of that singular difference ramifies, causing the different worlds generated by the original experimental difference to multiply. "World" really means a unique configuration of the universal wave function, so two worlds at different trials can't possibly be the "same world", and yes, there is only one measurement in each. That is precisely the stipulation of MWI. If we have a quantum experiment with two eigenvalues 1 and 0, and each is equally likely per the Born rule, then the MWI interpretation is that - effectively - two worlds are created. You, the experimenter, end up in both, each version knowing nothing about the other. So, in the "objective world" (the view from outside the whole wave function as it were), no probability is involved. But if you repeat this experiment many times, each version of you will record an apparently random sequence of 1s and 0s. Your best prediction of what happens in the next experiment is that it's a 50/50 toss up between 1 and 0. Objectively there's no randomness, subjectively it appears that way. > > >> John K Clark See my new list at Extropolis >> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> >> > -- 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/7df1cceb-93dd-4882-b8dd-88b916a7c4b3n%40googlegroups.com.
