On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 4:52 PM Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bruce,
>
> You claim there's "no mechanism" for assigning observer instances
> according to amplitude, but that’s just asserting ignorance as proof. The
> wavefunction already assigns amplitude-based structure to branches via
> unitary evolution and decoherence. The real question is whether measure
> naturally corresponds to observer frequencies—which is exactly what the
> Born rule states and what attempts at derivation (e.g., decision theory,
> self-locating uncertainty) try to formalize.
>
> Also, the idea that a "branch encompasses the whole world" is a rough
> classical approximation, not a fundamental quantum principle. If the
> wavefunction remains a continuous superposition, then what we call a branch
> is just a macroscopic partition of underlying structure, not a single
> discrete entity. Observer instances scale with measure because the
> amplitudes evolve deterministically, and decoherence prevents low-measure
> branches from contributing significantly to experience.
>
> Dismissing this as a "pipe dream" isn’t an argument—it's just an
> unwillingness to engage with the actual problem. If you want to claim MWI
> can't produce the Born rule, you need more than just repeating that you
> don't see how it happens. Again please publish and get the glory with your
> refutation.
>

I am still waiting for your mathematical derivation of the claims you make
above. "decoherence prevents low-measure branches from contributing
significantly to experience". I think a claim like this needs to be
justified. As it stands it just demonstrates that you do not have any
remote understanding of decoherence.

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/CAFxXSLSE%3DvcxS%3Dfr4K1HvCouLbt%2BLmashfBLWHt-0dDNY2Z5eA%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to