On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 5:17 AM George Kahrimanis <gekah...@gmail.com>

> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:12:12 AM UTC+3 Bruce wrote:
> [...]  I spelled out the sequences that Everett implies in my earlier
>> response. These clearly must have equal probability -- that is what the
>> theory requires. It is not an assumption on my part -- it is a
>> consequence of Everett's basic idea.
> I have already expressed disagreement, as a technical matter. I am not
> certain where the misunderstanding lies, but I suspect it is in presuming
> equal probabilities derived from sheer ignorance, as at least one other
> contributor claims. If you really insist on this opinion, it should be
> discussed in a separate conversation -- appealing to your "logical and
> mathematical skills", as you say.

You are right. I should not have used the phrase "equal probability".
Everettian QM does not have a concept of probability, so it is incorrect to
use this term in connection with Everettian branching. It would be more
correct to say that all branches are created on the same basis, or 'all
branches are created equal'. Just as it would be meaningless to claim that
one branch is more probable than some other branch, it is incorrect to say
that any one of the 2^N  branches after N Bernoulli trials is any more
likely than any other branch. All branches are created equal by the method
of construction of the branches as given by Everett.


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 

Reply via email to