On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> > On 7/4/2021 5:30 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:54:45 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > >> 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. >> > For example, A happens in 16 worlds and B in 9 worlds. Or in general, the > proportion of worlds where A happens to worlds where B happens is 16/9. > > But it's an additional axiom that this is a probability measure and the > split is per the Schroedinger amplitudes. Which then makes it just like > Copenhagen. Note that that the odds ratio 16:9 depends on the interaction > with measuring instruments (some other measurement would yield different > odds) and so it depends on at what point you stop considering > superpositions and say "That's classical enough. Let's just zero out the > cross terms in the density matrix." Something Heisenberg or Born could > have done and essentially what Bohr said. He realized that any measurement > that people could agree on would have to be classical. So he held that the > Heisenberg cut could be anywhere close enough to consciousness to be > quasi-classical. > > Brent > > Could it be because the mind is identified with a classical computation while the brain is ultimately a quantum mechanical system? Jason > 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. >> > In MWI the odds of being in a particular world depend on the counting of > branches, similarly like the odds of selecting a particular ball from a > basket depend on the counting of balls. But if there are infinitely many > branches in MWI, different ways of counting give different probabilities, > which means there are different possible probability measures, and so MWI > needs an additional axiom that specifies the measure and thus the way of > counting the branches. You say that the only possible (consistent) measure > is the Born rule; in that case no additional axiom about the measure is > needed (beyond the axiom of consistency, which goes without saying) and the > branches must be counted in such a way that the probabilities result in the > Born rule. > > -- > 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/ea83ab1b-e3cc-4ef8-be8d-02d59e1722a7n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ea83ab1b-e3cc-4ef8-be8d-02d59e1722a7n%40googlegroups.com?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 [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/49f011f4-45f4-314f-1a6d-5356d98c0855%40verizon.net > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/49f011f4-45f4-314f-1a6d-5356d98c0855%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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjYJg1BUHF9MVts0fWbKPgWSMdLuM9Tn_n2WfXW%3DYyVhQ%40mail.gmail.com.
