On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 6:39 PM Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brent, > > You say that unrealized possibilities are what probabilities quantify, but > in a single-history framework, those possibilities never had any existence > beyond the formalism. If only one history is real, then all other > possibilities were never actually possible in any meaningful way—they were > never real candidates for realization, just mathematical constructs. That’s > not an emotive argument; it’s pointing out that the entire notion of > probability in such a framework is detached from anything real. > > If probability is supposed to quantify real possibilities, then in a world > where only one history exists for all eternity, what exactly is being > quantified? If an event with a calculated probability of 50% never happens > in this one history, then its true probability was always 0%. Your > framework claims to allow for multiple possibilities, but in practice, it > only ever realizes one, making the rest nothing more than empty labels. > > And you assert that alternatives have a "grounding in reality"—but what > does that mean in a framework where they never actually happen? If they had > a genuine grounding, they would have to be part of reality in some form, > even if only probabilistically. But in a single-history framework, that > never happens. The probabilities exist only in the mind of the observer, > with no external ontological reality. They are tools that describe nothing > but a retrospective justification of what already happened. > > The supposed "problem" in MWI—that all possibilities are realized—actually > solves this issue. It gives probabilities a real basis in the structure of > the universe rather than treating them as abstract bookkeeping. The > probabilities describe real distributions across real histories rather than > referring to things that were never real to begin with. > > The single-world view wants to use probability while simultaneously > denying the existence of the things probability refers to. That’s not just > emotive talk—it’s a contradiction at the foundation of the framework. > > Quentin > Have you ever heard of repeated experiments? 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 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRi46%2B4v7Si6zFBSijV9FeKFdBS3YzydLTA5Txe7Qx%2BzA%40mail.gmail.com.
