On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 5:21 PM Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 09:23:50PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > No. He's not saying each bit sequence is equally likely. Probabilities > have > > not been introduced. He's saying that in every measurement of UP or > DWN, both > > results occur per MWI, and so in N repetitions there will be N > occurrences of > > UP and N occurrences of DWN and this obtains independent of the > probability of > > UP. Then for every observer who sees p*N Ups then there will also be an > > observer who sees (1-p)*N UPs (by simple symmetry). > > But that simple symmetry only applies if you've included also those > observers who have rotated their apparatus -θ as well as those who > have rotated the apparatus θ. > > If you restrict the range of observers to just those who have rotated > the apparatus to θ (as Bruce does) What makes you think that? Bruce , then it is no longer true that > "for every observer who sees p*N Ups then there will also be an > observer who sees (1-p)*N UPs". > > > And if p has a Born rule > > value other than 0.5 then one observer will find QM confirmed and the > other > > will see it contradicted. > -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQN2dmrHUPfL3hMdLSPACWJrHSv3nJOU1q3OHYbt0sYDQ%40mail.gmail.com.
