On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 2:41 PM Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 02:14:07PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 1:47 PM Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> > wrote: > > > > > > If you do the construction, all 2^N > > branches arise in the same way, so they have the same weight. > > This is where I disagree with you. The only way of assigning equal > weight is if there is some fundamental system symmetry that allows the > indifference principle to be applied. But by construction, that > symmetry is broken. > > > > > As I have said. I did not apply the indifference principle because the > > sequences would have equal weight simply by construction. Besides, the > > "weights" assigned to these sequences are essentially irrelevant. > > I disagree. > Then you will never understand the argument. The weights, wherever they come from, are largely irrelevant to the argument, which depends only on the observed proportions of zeros and ones in each sequence. That observed proportion can be used by the observer to estimate the value of the probability of a zero (p, in the above example). Since most sequences have approximately a 50/50 split, most observers will estimate p = 0.5, regardless of the initial coefficients a and b. Hence, MWI cannot reproduce the quantum mechanical results. 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/CAFxXSLTD%2BXEMS%2BkvZQjBEW%2BLHCUnKBc%2Bgv6mE%2B424WOjqb59cg%40mail.gmail.com.
