On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 3:16:04 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Bruce, Quantum mechanics has explanatory power because it provides accurate predictions and a framework for modeling reality. The problem isn’t with quantum mechanics itself—it’s with trying to reconcile probability with a single-history universe where only one sequence of events ever occurs. In a framework where only one history unfolds, probability is purely descriptive—it does not explain why this history, rather than any other, is the one that exists. It assigns numbers to theoretical possibilities that never had a chance of being real. You keep asserting that probabilities are meaningful in a single-history view, but meaningful in what sense? If a certain event, despite being assigned a 30% probability, never happens in the one realized history, then in what sense was it ever a possibility? In contrast, in a framework where all possibilities are realized, probability maintains a clear meaning: it describes the relative measure of outcomes across the full set of realized possibilities. In that case, probability is tied to something real, rather than just being a tool we use to pretend that nonexistent possibilities matter. The fact that quantum mechanics works well does not mean that a single-history interpretation is logically coherent when it comes to probability. You’re conflating the success of QM with the philosophical implications of trying to force probability into a framework where unrealized possibilities never had any reality at all. That’s the problem you’re not addressing. Why do you assume that some non-zero probabilities never occur? You have no way of knowing this even if it's true, Meanwhile, you prefer the MWI that can't be verified. Puzzling preferences. AG Le mer. 5 févr. 2025, 22:06, Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> a écrit : On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 7:36 AM Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote: Brent, I went through the document you sent, and it outlines the different interpretations of probability: mathematical, physical symmetry, degree of belief, and empirical frequency. But none of these resolve the core issue in a single-history universe—where probability is supposed to describe "possibilities" that, in the end, never had any reality. Your frequentist approach assumes that, given enough trials, outcomes will appear in proportions that match their theoretical probabilities. But in a finite, single-history universe, there is no guarantee that will ever happen. Some events with nonzero probability simply won’t occur—not because of statistical fluctuations, but because history only plays out one way. In that case, were those possibilities ever really possible? If something assigned a probability of 10% never happens in the actual course of the universe, then in what meaningful way was it ever a possibility? You argue that if all possibilities are realized, probability loses its meaning. But in a single-history world, probability is just as meaningless because it describes outcomes that never had a chance of being real. If probability is supposed to quantify potential realities, then in a framework where only one reality exists, probability is nothing more than a retrospective justification—it has no actual explanatory power. It is a shame that you think that quantum mechanics, with its reliance on probability calculations, has no actual explanatory power. That is contrary to the experience of quantum physicists for over close to 100 years. Good to see that being out on an impossible limb is still attractive to some people..... Bruce The math remains internally consistent, but it becomes an empty formalism, detached from anything real. The whole structure relies on pretending that unrealized events still "exist" in some abstract sense, even though they never affect reality. That’s the contradiction at the heart of the single-history view. It uses probability to describe possibilities while simultaneously denying that those possibilities ever had a chance to be real. -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRkqQMJMhHdKuSPdCngh6n%2B73by9XF4qT2FYw-R_vu41g%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRkqQMJMhHdKuSPdCngh6n%2B73by9XF4qT2FYw-R_vu41g%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/326080df-6bfd-47fb-af20-5919f2cf58den%40googlegroups.com.