On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 5:48:44 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 10:57 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *> An important component of Everett's idea was that quantum evolution was 
>> unitary.*
> Any idea that does not conform with quantum evolution being unitary is an 
> idea that does not conform with experimental evidence and thus has been 
> proven to be incorrect. 
> *> If one wants to persist with unitary evolution, one cannot avoid the 
>> Schrodinger equation. This has a number of consequences for the theory. One 
>> is that the theory is deterministic -- there are no probabilities*
> No probabilities are needed from a Multiverse point of view, but for any 
> observer in any particular universe there can only be probabilities because 
> for them some information is unavailable, and that's what probabilities are 
> all about, doing the best you can with incomplete information.  

The unresolved problem is that if you're using the frequentist 
interpretation of probability, you must count and compare the number of 
outcomes for each measurement possibility, but you can't do this without 
knowing that the outcomes that result are *in* the same Worlds. But for 
this to be true requires another axiom imposed on the SE, which you deny 
you are doing. AG  

> *> and all outcomes of an experiment are, in some real sense, equivalent.*
> Everett's idea is that if Schrodinger's Equation means what it says then all 
> outcomes of an experiment are EXACTLY equivalent to being real. And all 
> those many worlds are not an assumption of Everett's idea, they are a 
> consequence of it.  
> *> If every outcome is realized on every trial of a binary process, then* 
>> [...] 
> ...then observers in each branche will conclude that when they look at any 
> process for more fundemental things with finer and finer resolution 
> ultimately they MUST come to a binary process because there is a limit to 
> how simple things can get, and to understand something means you can see 
> how simplicity can make complexity. A process means turning one thing into 
> something else, and nothing is simpler than on or off, and no process is 
> simpler than turning on into off, or 0 into 1.
> *> Observers in these branches will naturally take the probability to be 
>> approximated by the relative frequencies of 0s and 1s.*
> If we're talking fundamentals how could it be otherwise? This email does 
> not contain an equal number of letters, but if you looked more closely at 
> it and digitized it you'd find it would contain very nearly as many zeros 
> as ones, and if a text compression program like zip was used on it the 
> number of zeros and ones would come even closer to being the same.
>  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> 3dc

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