# Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:32, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> The Born rule allows you to calculate the probability of what outcome you
> will see in a Universe where all outcomes occur.
>

You are still conflating incompatible theories. The Born rule is a rule for
calculating probabilities from the wave function -- it says nothing about
worlds or existence. MWI is a theory about the existence of many worlds.
These theories are incompatible, and should not be conflated.

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