On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 12:00 PM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:

> Bruce,
>
> Consider the following thought experiment, which directly parallels MWI
> and illustrates why your argument assumes what it tries to prove.
>
> Imagine we have a machine that can perfectly duplicate an observer, just
> as MWI implies happens during quantum measurements. The experiment works as
> follows:
>
> 1. The observer enters a sealed box.
>
> 2. Inside the box, they are duplicated into 10 copies.
>
> 3. Each duplicate is placed in an identical room with only one visible
> difference:
>
> One of them sees a 0 written on the wall.
>
> Nine of them see a 1 written on the wall.
>
> 4. The observer, upon exiting the box, can only report what they
> personally experienced.
>

It has occurred to me what is wrong with this example. Instead of
considering a two-outcome experiment, where we get either a zero or a one,
you have considered a ten-outcome experiment, with one zero and nine ones.
This is not equivalent to the binary case under consideration. In the
binary case, we get 2^N possible sequences after N trials, (not the 10^N
sequences as in your example). Because there are only two possible outcomes
in my example, the majority of sequences will have approximately a 50/50
split of zeros and ones. The majority of observers are then going to use
their data to estimate a probability of 0.5 for getting a zero. Now this
bears absolutely no relation to the actual Born probability, which is
a^2.The majority of observers estimate p = 0.5, whatever the value of a.
This is because there are only 2^N possible binary sequences of length N,
and we get the same 2^N sequences whatever the values of a and b. That is
why I say the amplitudes have no effect.

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/CAFxXSLSWH%3DL%3De34CjZVFo8YxGNCdwr1ryUfSFLdQ49_hruBr8w%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to