On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/2022 8:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > I think this boils down to the first person:third person confusion that > Bruno often refers to. > From the third person perspective, the outcome is certain. But from the > first person perspective of each of the copies, the outcome is not certain. > > Consider the following simple situation. You have a bag containing ten > balls, nine of which are red and one is black. If there are ten copies of > Bob, for example, and each copy draws a ball from the bag, without > replacement. Then it is certain (100% probability) that the black ball will > be drawn. But the probability that any particular copy of Bob drew the > black ball is only 10%. (They draw the balls without knowing the results of > other draws). The probability that 'Bob' (including all copies, presumed > identical) will have the black ball is still 100%. That is the 3p > perspective. For each copy, however, their 1p perspective is that the > probability that their ball is black is only 10%. The problem arises if you > attempt to impose the 1p perspective on the 3p view. It cannot be the case > that a particular copy of Bob is both certain to draw black and has only a > 10% chance of drawing black. To consider all copies as equally identified > as 'Bob' is the 3p view, and that is the view that is relevant for the > Everett interpretation of an experiment -- there is nothing in the SE that > identifies one particular observer (there is no 1p view), so Everett is > incompatible with the Born rule (which is a 1p view). > > > I don't think I agree that there is any such 3p view. There's a 3p > calculation, using MWI, in which ten different "Bob" are predicted. But no > third party ever sees these ten Bobs. > OK, no 'person' sees ten copies of Bob or ten outcomes. But it is common to use a 'super-observer' notion for this. -- the 3p calculation. The 3p view is then the objective 'view from outside'. When you start to rely on subjective perspectives I think you've already > violated the spirit of MWI which was proposed to apply to simple instrument > records as well as consciousness. Decoherence is such an instrument that > is implicit in the environment. > I think that is exactly right. I introduced 1p and 3p views in an attempt to come to terms with Saibal's presentation, but strictly everything should be done by instruments -- no persons involved. 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/CAFxXSLSnU%2BN-8dHoy%3D-PjaTmpu7dK%3Dvpg262mfReC-ENXpr1fA%40mail.gmail.com.
