# Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

`On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 9:57 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:`
```
>
>
> On 11/29/2023 4:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou <
>>>> stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> “The Born rule is a rule for calculating probabilities from the wave
>>> function -- it says nothing about worlds or existence”  -and- “MWI is a
>>> theory about the existence of many worlds” are not incompatible statements.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps that is the wrong way to look at it. The linearity of the
>> Schrodinger equation implies that the individuals on all branches are the
>> same: there is nothing to distinguish one of them as "you" and the others
>> as mere shadows or zombies. In other words, they are all "you". So you are
>> the person on the branch with all spins up and your probability of seeing
>> this result is one, since this branch certainly exists, and, by linearity,
>> "you" are the individual on that branch. This is inconsistent with the
>> claim that the Born rule gives the probability that "you" will see some
>> particular result. As we have seen, the probability that "you" will see all
>> ups in one, whereas the Born probability for this result is 1/2^N. These
>> probability estimates are incompatible.
>>
>
>
> According to relativity you exist in all times across your lifespan (and
> all times are equally really).
>
> Sez who?
>

Sez Einstein, Minkowski, C.W. Rietdijk, Kip Thorne, Briane Greene, and
Roger Penrose, to name a few.

> seriously.
>

You agreed with this at one point in time.

In any case, it's not a mere image, but a well accepted implication of
relativity. See:

For references.

Jason

>
> Yet you are only ever aware of being in one time and in one place. I think
> this tells us more about the limitations of our neurology than it reveals
> about the extent or nature of reality. If a copy of me is created on Mars,
> the me know Earth doesn't magically become aware of it.
>
> Jason
>
>
>> 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
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> .
>>
> --
> 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
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> .
>
>
> --
> 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
> To view this discussion on the web visit