Le jeu. 6 févr. 2025, 00:46, Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > > > On 2/5/2025 12:53 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Bruce, > > Repeated experiments don’t change the core issue. Even if you perform an > experiment a trillion times, in a single-history universe, there is still > only one realized sequence of outcomes. That means certain possibilities > with greater than zero probability will simply never happen—not just in a > given run, but ever. > > So you want to count distributions over inaccessible worlds who's only > claim on existence is they keep all the solutions to Schroedingers > equation. But you don't want to count distributions over time because you > can think of them as a sequence...even though the probabilities applied to > single events. > > Brent > Brent, The difference is fundamental: distributions over time in a single-history universe are not the same as distributions over actualized possibilities. In a single-history world, time only ever produces one sequence of events. If an outcome with a supposed 10% probability never occurs, then in what sense was it ever truly a possibility? It wasn’t—it was just a number assigned to something that never happened and never was going to happen in this one realized history. In contrast, in a framework where all possibilities are realized, probability retains its full meaning because it describes the structure of the wavefunction across all branches. The distribution is not just an abstract mathematical expectation—it corresponds to actual occurrences. The probabilities aren’t just numbers assigned before an event; they describe real proportions of outcomes across reality. You claim I “don’t want to count distributions over time,” but that’s not the issue. The issue is that in a single-history universe, probability is always a retrospective descriptor with no causal power. You act as if probability applies to single events in isolation, but that only works if you assume that unrealized possibilities somehow “mattered” despite never actually happening. That’s the contradiction: single-history probability calculations reference things that were never part of reality, yet claim to describe reality. If you want to argue that probability is meaningful in a single-history framework, then explain this: if an outcome has a calculated probability of 10% but never occurs in the one and only history that unfolds, was it ever a real possibility? If yes, then where is that possibility? If no, then what was probability actually describing? Quentin > -- > 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/7859554a-525f-4639-abdc-0be2367b7935%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7859554a-525f-4639-abdc-0be2367b7935%40gmail.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/CAMW2kAp_9-7Mu-AU9_o6xfBmgnHLnfB_6Cz18_mMyehGZq3DWA%40mail.gmail.com.
