On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 7:35 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote:
*>>> So how do you accommodate a situation in which there is a 90% chance >>> of seeing Moscow and a 10% chance of seeing Helsinki?* >>> >> >> >> You've asked that exact same question several times before so I'll >> answer it the exact same way I did before because you never made an >> argument against what I said, you just keep asking the same question again. >> If I know the duplicating machine has made 10 copies of me and that 9 of >> them are in Helsinki and 1 is in Moscow then then 9 John Clark's will >> remember seeing Helsinki but only 1 will remember seeing Moscow; so if >> they place odds after the duplication but before the door was opened and >> they observe where they are they would all say there was a 90% chance >> they were in Helsinki, and 90% of them would turn out to be correct >> and would win their bet. >> > > *> The trouble is that the duplicating machine makes only one copy, so > there is one for Moscow and one for Helsinki. There are no multiple copies > in the original scenario. Changing the nature of the question is not an > answer.* > Huh?! The question asked of me was how could I explain a 90% chance of seeing Moscow and a 10% chance of seeing Helsinki and I have done so. If only one copy has been made then there would *NOT* be a 90% chance of seeing Moscow and a 10% chance of seeing Helsinki. > > *So I ask again, how do you accommodate a situation in which there is > a 90% chance of being on one branch and a 10% chance of being on the other > branch* And I would answer that question exactly precisely the same way I have already answered it so many times before and absolutely refused to do again until somebody points to an objection I haven't already answered a dozen times before. *> Changing the number of branches (or duplicates) is fine in a > general theory, but not in QM. The SE gives only one branch for each > outcome.* > And moving one hydrogen atom in your big toe (or even the big toe of your neighbor across the street) one nanometer to the left is a change that will split a universe if MWI is correct, but that outcome will not make a difference to your conscious experience, at least not immediately, perhaps in time it will due to classical chaos but that's irrelevant for this discussion. > *> What you are really saying is that the SE is inconsistent with the Born > rule -- a point I have been making all along.* > We already know mathematically that if you want to get probabilities out of the wave equation and have all the probabilities add up to exactly 1 and none of the probabilities have a negative value (and you need those things for the very concept of probability to make any sense) then the Born rule is the only way to do it; I think that's why Brent said "*Explaining the values of the probabilities isn't the problem with MWI, it's explaining that there **are** probabilities**". *I guess for some reason you disagree with Brent. John K Clark See what's on my new list at *Extropolis* <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> zmv -- 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/CAJPayv3a1L_NrGFEx51fOfaDxoXRNaudu-uxPZMp_6qMuMSy%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.
