On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. 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.
