On 7/4/2021 6:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 7/4/2021 5:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 6:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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?
Yes. They don't pretend that all you need is the Schroedinger
equation and linear evolution of the state. They explicitly
recognize that you need a probability interpretation to connect
with observations.
But if all (including MW) require a 'probability interpretation', then
I don't see the disadvantage of MW here.
What additional assumptions are needed by MW that aren't needed by the
others?
It needs the assumption that the splitting or the selection of split is
random per the Born rule. True this, or equivalent is needed in the
other interpretations. But given that you need this interpretation, why
keep all those worlds. You've already committed to a probability
interpretation: So instead of:
MWI axiom: Everything happens in proportionate number of worlds per Born
and then one is selected per self-locating uncertainty in accordance
with a uniform random distribution.
You can have
CI: The possible worlds have probabilities of being realized per Born
and one of them is.
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/5dcbf0d0-69fc-93d7-1cff-794e05cc8503%40verizon.net.
