# Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

```On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:25 AM Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com>
wrote:```
```
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:17, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:13 AM Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 10:53, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:40 AM Stathis Papaioannou <
>>>> stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 09:34, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:29 AM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:14 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *> Given a long series of N spin measurements, MWI says that there
>>>>>>>> is always one person who sees N spin-ups. Since this observation is
>>>>>>>> certain, it has probability one. Whereas the Born probability of
>>>>>>>> seeing N
>>>>>>>> ups is 1/2^N. A clear contradiction.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  The probability that Bruce Kellett will see N spin-ups is indeed
>>>>>>> one. However the probability that you will see  N spin-ups is not.
>>>>>>> As I mentioned before, for this sort of discussion the way the English
>>>>>>> language handles personal pronouns needs to be modified.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not a question of whether you will see the N spin-ups, or
>>>>>> whether it is just one copy of Bruce Kellett that will see this. The
>>>>>> incompatibility arises from the fact that the series of N spin-ups
>>>>>> necessarily exits in MWI, where it only has probability 1/2^N from the
>>>>>> Born
>>>>>> rule.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you lived in any sort of universe where you were duplicated, there
>>>>> would be some probability that you would see different outcomes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what? The problem you have is that you have changed the rules of the
>>>> theory -- from a theory about what exists, to a theory about what you will
>>>> see. Since you will only ever see one outcome, one world, you have reduced
>>>> it from a theory of many worlds to a theory of a single world -- the world
>>>> you will see!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously the Born rule under MWI is about the probability of what
>>> outcome you will see.
>>>
>>
>> As I pointed out, if it is a theory about what you will see, then it is a
>> single world theory, since you will only ever see just one world. Hence the
>> incompatibility with Many worlds, which is a theory about what exists.
>>
>
> If I pull a coloured ball out of a basket, there is a probability of what
> ball I will see and a theory about what balls exist.
>

Not really comparable. The probability of what ball you get is distinct
from the fact that the ball exists. MWI is not a theory about what you will
see. Any theory about that is necessarily a single world theory since you
only see one ball. MWI is a theory about what exists, and its claim is that
many worlds all exist with probability one.

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