On 05-05-2022 01:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 5:27 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

On 04-05-2022 01:49, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 10:11 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

What you are constructing is not the result of QM.

I think you are being confused by the presence of coefficients in
the
expansion of the original state: the a and b in

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

The linearity of the Schrodinger equation means that the
coefficients,
a and b, play no part in the construction of the 2^N possible
branches; you get the same set of 2^N branches whatever the values
of
a and b. Think of it this way. If a = sqrt(0.9) and b = sqrt(0.1),
the
Born rule probability for |0> is 90%, and the Born rule
probability
for |1> is 10%. But, by hypothesis, both outcomes occur with
certainty
on each trial. There is a conflict here. You cannot rationally
have a
10% probability for something that is certain to happen.

Of course you can. The lottery example shows that even in classical
physics you can imagine this happening. If  a million copies of you
are
made and one will win a lottery whole the rest won't then you have
one
in a million chance of experiencing winning the lottery, even though

both outcomes of winning and losing will occur with certainty.

The trouble is that classically, a million copies of you cannot be
made.

Then assume that I'm Mr. Data and just copy the software running Mr. Data a million times. So, this is not a findamtnel problem with the argument.

The issue was that if the probability of an outcome is 10%, then
it does not make sense to say that that outcome will certainly happen.

It does make sense in a scenario where there are multiple copies if the same observer. If Alice makes 10 copies of Bob, and one copy of Bob is going to experience outcome A and the rest will experience outcome B, then from Alice will see all the possible states for Bob. But from Bob's point of view, things are different. After Bob is exposed to the result (A or B) there are two versions of Bob, Bob<A and Bob_B, and if Bob knows beforehand how the experiment s set up, he'll assign a probability of 10% of going to find himself in state Bob_B after the experiment.


Putting things off into other worlds does not make the logic work. If
there is a copy of you for every ticket in the lottery, then you can
say with certainty that one copy of you will have the winning ticket.
But what sense does it make to say that your chance of winning is then
one in a million? You can't have it both ways. If winning and not
winning are both regarded as legitimate outcomes, then you are not
certain to win, although you are certain to have an outcome. Whatever
way you spin it, the same thing cannot both be certain and have a
probability of 10% (or one in a million).


See above explanation.

Saibal

Bruce

 --
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/CAFxXSLQ4po5iHWyefMkk5-5AheiRTudkfkSJ2eXgfFAXX1ntTQ%40mail.gmail.com
[1].


Links:
------
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ4po5iHWyefMkk5-5AheiRTudkfkSJ2eXgfFAXX1ntTQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

--
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/4e0481d11902b6bc19dbe10dcfaecc80%40zonnet.nl.

Reply via email to