On 4/27/2022 2:00 PM, smitra wrote:

If you agree, and are prepared, with me, to throw out Everett, then we agree, and there is nothing more to be argued about (at least, until you present some different complete theory).I'm open to the idea that QM itself may only be an approximation to amore fundamental theory. The arguments in favor of no collapse arestrong arguments but you then do get this issue with probability thatyou have discussed here. The disagreement with you about this is thatI don't see it as a fatal inconsistency that would prove the MWI tobe wrong. Probabilities for the different branches do not have to beequal. But that doesn't mean that this looks to be a rather unnaturalfeature of the theory. This suggests that a more fundamental theoryexists from which one could derive quantum mechanics with itsformalism involving amplitudes and the Born rule as an approximation.

`If there are probabilities attached to the branches, then Gleason's`

`theorem shows that the probabilities must satisfy the Born rule. So I`

`don't seen any inconsistency in simply saying they are probabilities of`

`measurement results, that's Copenhagen. But if they are probabilities`

`of results that implies that some things happen and others don't...other`

`wise what does "probability" mean and what use is it as an empirical`

`concept? That brings back the original problem of CI, where and how is`

`this happening defined?`

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7954277d-8375-0340-a5f7-b42d7d514fdb%40gmail.com.