# Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

```On 27-04-2022 03:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
```
`On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 10:32 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:`
```
```
```On 27-04-2022 01:37, Bruce Kellett wrote:

```
```I think you
should pay more attention to the mathematics of the binomial
distribution. Let me explain it once more: If every outcome is
realized on every trial of a binary process, then after the first
trial, we have a branch with result 0 and a branch with result 1.
After two trials we have four branches, with results 00, 01,
```
```10,and
```
```11; after 3 trials, we have branches registering 000, 001, 011,
```
```010,
```
```100, 101, 110, and 111. Notice that these branches represent all
possible binary strings of length 3.

After N trials, there are 2^N distinct branches, representing all
possible binary sequences of length N. (This is just like Pascal's
triangle) As N becomes very large, we can approximate the binomial
distribution with the normal distribution, with mean 0.5 and
```
```standard
```
```deviation that decreases as 1/sqrt(N). In other words, the
```
```majority of
```
```trials will have equal, or approximately equal, numbers of 0s and
```
```1s.
```
```Observers in these branches will naturally take the probability to
```
```be
```
```approximated by the relative frequencies of 0s and 1s. In other
```
```words,
```
```they will take the probability of each outcome to be 0.5.

```
```
The problem with this is that you just assume that all branches are
equally probable. You don't make that explicit, it's implicitly
assumed,
but it's just an assumption. You are simply doing branch counting.
```
```
The distinctive feature of Everettian Many worlds theory is that every
possible outcome is realized on every trial. I don't think that you
have absorbed the full significance of this revolutionary idea. There
is no classical analogue of this behaviour, which is why your lottery
example is irrelevant.  I spelled out the sequences that Everett
implies in my earlier response. These clearly must have equal
probability -- that is what the theory requires.
```
```
```
QM without collapse does not require equal probabilities. Branches are not a fundamental concept of the theory. You just put this in by hand.
```
```
```It is not an
assumption on my part -- it is a consequence of Everett's basic idea.
```
```
```
Everett's (or for that matter any other person's) ideas cannot be the basis for doing physics in a rigorous way. Your argument is not based on QM without collapse, you are making ad hoc assumptions about branching when branching isn't a fundamental process in QM.
```

```
```So there is no branch counting involved. That is just another red
herring that you have thrown up to distract yourself from the cold
hard logic of the situation.

```
```
```
You just presented an elaborate presentation involving N branching steps and counted all 2^N branches as equal. That's branch counting and it's known to not be compatible with QM. The MWI can be taken to be QM without collapse and this is known to be a consistent theory. So, if you arrive at a contradiction, you are making assumptions that are not implied by the theory.
```
Saibal

```
```Bruce

```
```The important point to notice is that this result of all possible
binary sequences for N trials is independent of the coefficients
```
```in
```
```the binary expansion of the state:

|psi> = a|0> + b|1>.

Changing the weights of the components in the superposition does
```
```not
```
```change the conclusion of most observers that the actual
```
```probabilities
```
```are 0.5 for each result. This is simple mathematics, and I am
```
```amazed
```
```that even after all these years, and all the times I have spelled
```
```this
```
```out, you still seek to deny the obvious result. Your logical and
mathematical skill are on a par with those of John Clark.
```
```
--
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
To view this discussion on the web visit
[1].

------
[1]
```