On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 9:51 AM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If you assign probability to horse X winning, you are describing > uncertainty before the race is run, which is exactly the point. In standard > probability, that uncertainty is about a single outcome being realized. In > MWI, it’s about which branch an observer will find themselves in. > And how many branches is that? It is just about a single outcome being realized. Other possibilities are not realized. Same as with probability -- One thing happens, others don't. The key question isn’t whether probability exists before measurement, it’s > why the observer should expect the Born rule to govern the distribution of > experiences. If you dismiss self-locating uncertainty, then what mechanism > in a purely unitary framework explains why we don’t see uniform > distributions or some other weighting instead of Born’s rule? > Why do you expect to see outcomes conforming to the Born probabilities? In a single-world framework, the supposed ensemble of possible outcomes is > purely imaginary, it never happens, it never will, and it has no more > reality than a work of fiction. Treating these unrealized possibilities as > if they have explanatory power is just storytelling, not a real mechanism. > You are obsessed with 'mechanisms'. This is quantum mechanics, not 19th century rods-and-wires stuff. What is the "mechanism" of gravity? With Newton we can reasonably say *Hypotheses non fingo!* 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQoSEMnja3kU4TRQzg46c%2B4wVVaF04S9OYqs6RJV8G3Hw%40mail.gmail.com.
