Le ven. 4 oct. 2024, 12:55, John Clark <[email protected]> a écrit :
> 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! * > Bruno never ever claimed this... you did it on purpose, that's a straw man. *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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3WpgAUX7FOSt95k%3DqH18ub1a12Fa%3Doo0E_fDfHvS-PnA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CAMW2kApXkNB476QS21KqNuQUjwv0apathrUy3srOgBEdnnycHw%40mail.gmail.com.
