Bruce, You assume that branch counting alone determines probabilities, but that assumption is precisely what’s in question. If observer instances are proportional to amplitude, then probability follows naturally without needing to impose it.
Decoherence creates effectively independent branches, but nothing in quantum mechanics states that all branches contribute equally. If you assume they do, you are assuming what you need to prove—namely, that amplitudes play no role in observer distribution. A simple analogy: if you run the same conscious program on multiple machines, each instance experiences the same thing. If 9 instances see "1" and 1 instance sees "0," then the subjective probability of seeing "1" is 90%, despite all outcomes existing. That is not branch counting—it’s a direct consequence of duplication asymmetry. You claim that "the evidence is against me," but provide no mechanism explaining why we should ignore amplitude. If you believe MWI cannot recover Born’s rule, then you need more than branch counting—you need to explain why experimental probabilities match a rule that, under your logic, should not emerge at all. Quentin Le ven. 21 févr. 2025, 23:46, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> a écrit : > On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 9:19 AM Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Brent, >> >> Consider a simple computational analogy: if consciousness is a program, >> running multiple instances of it doesn’t create different "people"—it just >> creates more instances of the same subjective experience. >> >> Now, imagine we take a program that simulates an observer. We run it 9 >> times on computers that display "1" on the screen and once on a computer >> that displays "0". Each instance of the program experiences seeing either >> "1" or "0", but the overwhelming majority experience "1". >> >> This mirrors how observer instances distribute in MWI: more instances >> exist in high-amplitude branches. The program has no way to distinguish >> whether it's in a "common" or "rare" instance, but if you were to randomly >> select an instance, it would most likely be one that sees "1". >> >> This is the key distinction: probability in MWI doesn’t come from >> counting branches; it comes from the relative number of observer instances >> in each. The Born rule follows naturally if amplitude determines observer >> frequency—just as in the example, where the majority of observer instances >> see "1" despite both outcomes occurring. >> > > Prove that the amplitude determines observer frequency - the evidence is > all against you. It is clear that the Schrodinger equation does not act on > amplitudes. > > Decoherence does increase the number of copies of an observer on a > particular branch (or, better, related branches). But that just > demonstrates that your "preponderance of observers" is no more than simp[le > branch counting. > > 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/CAFxXSLQszdaHgOEChjWkpWASBvyXGGnC433%2Bx9SXmOBo7y9wpg%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQszdaHgOEChjWkpWASBvyXGGnC433%2Bx9SXmOBo7y9wpg%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/CAMW2kAoowzaGaD4H6XRm%3DHVZaAcF5POkAQnxCtL7ULQHb5ozCA%40mail.gmail.com.
