On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 17:30, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 5:23 PM Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 15:08, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 1:07 PM Liz R <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I don't think that works. The idea often put forward is something >>>>> along the lines of self-locating uncertainty -- out of all the branches, >>>>> which one am I on? But that is only apparent randomness, and to get such >>>>> an >>>>> idea to work, you need to be able to make a random choice between >>>>> branches. >>>>> Such randomness will be intrinsic in that It doesn't come from anywhere >>>>> else (it is not already part of the theory). So in order to generate such >>>>> apparent randomness you actually need an independent source of intrinsic >>>>> randomness (to be able to make your self-locating choice.) >>>>> >>>> >>>> The intrinsic randomness arises from the fact that it is impossible to >>>> predict which branch you will end up in, even for an omniscient being. >>>> >>> >>> That is just a restatement of the traditional measurement problem. >>> Self-locating uncertainty is not intrinsic randomness. What is it that >>> selects which branch you are actually on? You need some means of random >>> selection which is not included in the underlying theory. You have to add, >>> by hand, some additional principle of randomness, such as the Born Rule. >>> >> >> Nothing selects which branch you will be on, since with certainty a >> version of you will end up in each branch. If the omniscient being predicts >> that you will end up in branch A, the prediction is wrong for the version >> of you in branch B, and if the omniscient being predicts that you will end >> up in branch B the prediction is wrong for the version of you in branch A. >> It is logically impossible to make an accurate prediction. >> > > It is unfortunate, therefore, that all real experiments result in just one > answer, which is the nub of the measurement problem. Which answer is > unpredictable, but that does not mean that there can be some omniscient > being that can predict your result. It is a matter of an intrinsic > probability -- *viz*. the Born Rule. > The branching makes the outcome fundamentally unpredictable, which is what randomness is. It results from the branching and nothing else. It is not specific to QM or MWI: it results from any process where the observer branches. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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/CAH%3D2ypXVEKrgfS2ZSd5%3DtavBUcbMeDMYDD_WzcMG%2BGPTEFZFFQ%40mail.gmail.com.
