Well as I see it, we can't discuss on this list without violence, since you seems to see yourself as a hugh end hyper intelligent human being, I'll stop right here. Stay with your kind. Bye
Le mar. 11 févr. 2025, 11:47, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> a écrit : > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 6:29 PM Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Bruce, >> >> Your argument assumes that all branches are equally weighted in terms of >> observer experience, which contradicts what we actually see in quantum >> experiments. The claim that the Schrödinger equation is "insensitive" to >> amplitudes is incorrect. The amplitudes evolve deterministically under the >> Schrödinger equation and define the measure associated with each outcome. >> The Born rule does not need to be "inserted" into MWI—it emerges naturally >> if one considers measure as determining how many observer instances >> experience each outcome. >> >> Your claim that there are exactly 2^N observers after N trials and that >> each one "counts equally" ignores what measure represents. The fundamental >> point is that not all branches contribute equally to what an observer >> experiences. Yes, an observer exists on every branch, but that does not >> mean they exist in equal numbers. >> >> In standard probability theory, an event occurring in more instances is >> simply more likely to be observed. Similarly, in MWI: >> >> A branch with a higher amplitude means there are exponentially more >> copies of the observer experiencing that outcome. >> > > Your argument might be more convincing if any of this actually followed > from the Schrodinger equation. > > > This is not "assigning degrees of existence"—it is stating that measure >> determines how many versions of an observer find themselves in a given >> sequence. >> >> You can call this "silly," but it's the only way MWI remains consistent >> with experiments. If each observer counted equally across all branches, we >> would expect uniform probabilities, contradicting the Born rule. >> > > The fact is that MWI is not consistent with experiment since the different > sequences in repeated trials on similarly prepared systems fail to give > frequencies in accordance with the Born rule. > > > > > >> The Schrödinger equation is not "insensitive" to amplitudes; it governs >> their evolution. The amplitudes define how much of the total wavefunction >> exists in each outcome. Saying that amplitudes are "inert" is like saying >> that in classical probability, event frequencies are "inert" because the >> probability distribution does not dynamically change per trial. >> > > Nonsense. > > The fact that amplitudes don’t directly affect local observations does not >> mean they are irrelevant. You do not need to "see" probability >> distributions to experience their effects. In classical cases, you observe >> probabilities through frequency distributions—not because you see an >> abstract probability function floating in space. >> > > No, you observe probabilities because some things happen while others > don't. > > > Similarly, in MWI, you experience the effects of amplitude-based measure >> because the majority of your copies exist in branches that follow the Born >> rule. >> > > There is no mathematical justification for such a proposition. > > > Your argument frames measure as a metaphysical claim about "degrees of >> existence," but that’s a strawman. Measure is not about some observers >> being "more real" than others—it’s about how many instances of a given >> observer exist in different branches. >> > > That is how you have used the concept, since there is only one copy of you > as the observer on each branch -- that is what the Schrodinger equation > says. All else is fantasy. > > > Imagine a lottery where some numbers are printed millions of times and >> others are printed once. Saying "each ticket exists, so all are equal" >> ignores the fact that you are overwhelmingly more likely to pick a ticket >> that was printed millions of times. >> >> This is exactly what happens in MWI: >> >> Yes, every sequence of outcomes exists. >> >> But observers overwhelmingly find themselves in high-measure sequences >> because there are simply more instances of them there. >> > > That is not the case. If it were, then you could get that result from the > Schrodinger equation. But you can't. > > > If your claim were correct, quantum mechanics would fail to match >> experiment, because the observed frequencies would not match the Born rule. >> Since that never happens, the conclusion is clear: measure, not naive >> branch counting, determines what observers experience. >> > > MWI does not match experiments, because it cannot get the Born rule. You > cannot even consistently impose the Born rule on Evettian theory. > > Yes, there is currently no clear cut theories to recover the born rule >> from Schrödinger equation alone, doesn’t mean there aren't. >> > > I see, you are just not clever enough to see how it all works! > > > Also I'm not an advocate of MWI per se, I prefer information theory >> approach from which we should be able to recover MW like theories and a >> measure (maybe mixing some UD and speed prior) >> > > Since you are not clever enough to see how it all works, it might be > better if you stopped laying down the law to those who can see more clearly. > > 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/CAFxXSLT705r0mBnnxsXzgAHLatyCF%2BKTjRbkZgR9HOFKN3vbwQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLT705r0mBnnxsXzgAHLatyCF%2BKTjRbkZgR9HOFKN3vbwQ%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/CAMW2kApYAL-_CKSziFz%2B5CXvSdpw%2B_EGM011NZ37w08X0z9%2ByQ%40mail.gmail.com.
