On 2/17/2021 6:46 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 1:05 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On 2/17/2021 4:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:Thus previous experience is no guide to the future in MWI. I know this is true also in ordinary classical probability theory, but the difference is that in MWI, one or more of your successors is bound to see the atypical sequences -- that is not guaranteed in classical probability theory. It *might* happen, but it is not *bound to* happen. This difference is important.I don't think it's even relevant. It isn't "bound to happen" to you. It's just a possibility for you, just as it is in the Kolmogorov sample space.This is the problem with personal identity in many worlds -- the copies are all *you*, so your comment is without force. You are sneaking in the collapse that Sabine mentions; or you are making a dualist assumption -- only one of the copies is *really you*.
I don't think so. Every copy post-test is some copy of you pre-test. The Everett explicitly writes the post-test wave function with all the you's in it. I don't see that as any more problematic than referring to possible you's pre-test. In any probabilistic theory only one possibility is realized...that doesn't mean we have to assume there was some realism-spirit that got passed to it.
<........>Yes. I think that the idea that Bob has been pursuing is a definite non-starter. Carroll is smart enough to see this, even though he does want to finally reduce probability to branch counting. The real trouble I see with Sean's approach is that he has to call on Born rule insights to know how many additional branches to manufacture. His approach is irreducibly circular.But then he could just postulate the Born rule as the way to partition, or create, branches and it would work; which is what Sabine says. And that tells me that the Hemmo and Pitkowsky objection is wrong.That is what Carroll and Bob are doing. But that rather defeats the purpose of deriving the Born rule from the Schrodinger equation alone. All such arguments are inherently circular.
I agree with that. Do you agree that it would work to simply add the Born rule to MWI as a postulate?
Brent -- 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/dd943a09-b999-cc94-7d64-2bd19de6481f%40verizon.net.
