On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 6:17 PM Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You’re treating "branches" as isolated, discrete units, but if the > wavefunction remains a continuous superposition, then what we call "a > branch" is just an approximation—a macroscopic coarse-graining of many > micro-branches. Decoherence prevents interference between them, but it does > not imply a strict one-to-one mapping between observer instances and > branches. > Unitary decoherence does not work as you claim. If more observer instances exist in a high-amplitude region of the > wavefunction, then an observer randomly drawn from the total set of > observers is overwhelmingly likely to experience a sequence in proportion > to its measure, not because the sequence itself is somehow weighted, but > because there are simply more instances of the observer experiencing it. > There is no mechanism in unitary quantum mechanics that can give the structure that you envisage. This is not just an abstract claim—it follows directly from how measure > works in probability. If you duplicate a computational process a million > times and run it on different hardware, the subjective experience of that > process does not exist in just one instance. Similarly, in MWI, if > decoherence results in more observer instances in a high-measure region, > then most self-locating observers will find themselves in those regions. > That does not work in unitary quantum mechanics. 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/CAFxXSLT5C0oRk5x5t13u%2B4bseE2bjOJT9fvjt6k0w-N1XXyJ6A%40mail.gmail.com.
