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.

Reply via email to