On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 6:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> > On 7/4/2021 5:17 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:51:51 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > >> >> And in the two-outcome experiment, how do you ever get a probability >> different from 0.5 for each possible outcome? >> >> You would seem to be looking for a branch counting explanation of >> probability (self-locating uncertainty). But there is no mechanism in >> Everett or the Schrodinger equation to give anything other than a 50/50 >> split when only two outcomes are possible. This is wildly at variance with >> experience. >> > > In the classical example with balls you may have a collection of blue and > red balls so there are only two possible outcomes of a random selection of > a ball: blue and red. This doesn't mean that the proportion of blue and red > balls in the collection must be 50/50. Why would the proportion of > branching worlds necessarily be 50/50 if there are only two possible > outcomes? > > > It's not that it's necessarily 50/50; it's that there's no mechanism for > it being the values in the Schroedinger equation. In one world A happens. > In the other world B happens. How does, for example, a 16:9 ratio get > implemented. There's nothing in Schroedinger's equation that assigns one > of those numbers to one world or the other. You can just make it an > axiom. Or equivalently, if you can show these are odds ratios, you can > invoke Gleason's theorem as the only consistent probability measure. But > all that is extra stuff that MWI claims to avoid by just being pure > Schroedinger equation evolution. > > Brent > > Is this question unique to MW? Do Copenhagen/GRW/QBism/Transactional/Bohm have any advantage(s) in explaining the Born rule? I don't understand the problem that's unique to MW. Jason > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/44aceed9-5408-9dc0-ebcb-436765a7df23%40verizon.net > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/44aceed9-5408-9dc0-ebcb-436765a7df23%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjA7u%2BF7R4qhjby%2BcBBYBZ2kirPCfTV6-oYk8tQf%2Bs6Lw%40mail.gmail.com.
