On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 7:52 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
*> Self-locating uncertainty is not the answer. It requires branches to be > split in ratios according to the Born rule. And no non-circular theory has > ever been devised that can give this result.* > *It's reasonable to assume that branches with equal quantum amplitude would have equal probability, and if you wish to generalize that so it covers cases with unequal probability then the Born Rule is the only way to do it, provided you wish probability to always be non-negative and always add up to exactly 1. * *The way I like to think about it (I don't claim this is actually true, it's just an analogy) is that when the universe splits into two they are not necessarily of the same thickness, and so after the split but before you've looked at your measuring equipment if you had to bet on which universe you were in and we're rational then you would play the odds and bet you were in the thicker one. And that's why we need probability even though Schrodinger's Equation is 100% deterministic and the Universal Wave Function is the sum total of the entire Multiverse. If we were infinite beings and could observe and comprehend that entire wave function we wouldn't even need to talk about "worlds" we would just talk about that wave function, but unfortunately we are not infinite so talking about worlds is the best we can do. * > *> Besides, self-locating uncertainty, like any probability arising from > ignorance, assumes some prior notion of randomness, or probability.* > *Yes, and u**ntil I look at my measuring equipment I am ignorant, I don't know if I'm in the universe where the electron is spin up or spin down. * > * > It is also inherently dualist, since there is an unspoken assumption > that only one of the copies on the different branches is really you.* > *Now Bruce Kellett sounds like Bruno Marchal and Bruno Marchal never made one bit of sense to John Clark. It's RIDICULOUS to claim only one of the copies on the different branches is really you! And when discussing matters of this sort personal pronouns should NEVER be used because there is no clear referent.* John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> mns -- 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/CAJPayv3WpgAUX7FOSt95k%3DqH18ub1a12Fa%3Doo0E_fDfHvS-PnA%40mail.gmail.com.
