Le lun. 24 févr. 2025, 23:29, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 9:15 AM Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> You keep assuming that one branch corresponds to one observer, but that’s >> simply not what MWI proposes. >> > > That is exactly what Everett (MWI) proposes. Have you not in the least > understood what I have been saying. On each measurement of the binary > wavefunction, the observer splits, so that there is one copy on each > branch. Continuing this process N times leads to the 2^N branches with one > observer on each sequence. There is only one observer per sequence > (branch), because that is what the unitary splitting process gives you. > > > Everett’s framework is about relative states, not discrete worlds with >> single, isolated observers. If you treat branches as coarse-grained >> partitions of an underlying continuous wavefunction, then observer >> instances scale with amplitude, >> > > But that is not what unitary evolution and the Schrodinger equation say. > It is just pure fantasy on your part. I can ask, where do these additional > observers on each branch come from? They are not included in any of the > mathematics of unitary evolution. > Bruce, If we consider that there is always an infinite superposition of branches, then each partition also contains an infinite number of branches, but with different relative measures. The key point is that branches are not discrete objects—they are coarse-grained regions of the wavefunction shaped by decoherence. Unitary evolution does not create additional observers explicitly, but if measure reflects the density of observer instances within the wavefunction, then the number of observers experiencing a particular sequence is not uniform across all branches. This avoids naive branch counting and aligns with how probabilities emerge from continuous distributions rather than discrete events. The challenge is formalizing this within unitary QM, possibly through information-theoretic approaches, measure theory, or even constraints from computational complexity. If amplitudes guide the structure of the wavefunction, why wouldn’t they also influence the distribution of observer instances? Quentin > and that’s what leads to the Born rule. The fact that all 2^N sequences >> exist doesn’t mean they contain the same number of observer copies. If you >> disagree, you need to justify why unitary evolution should produce equal >> weighting when the amplitudes explicitly define the structure of the >> wavefunction. >> > > That is what has been done. Unitary evolution produces one observer for > each branch, because the observers are copies that arise from unitary > splits according to the Schrodinger equation. At this stage, there are no > such things as branch weights, because they have not been defined. I am > just following unitary evolution and, although the amplitudes get carried > along, they have no particular meaning or significance until some such is > imposed from outside. > > 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/CAFxXSLRZL_k3t%2B%2Bo2BLjMi3ZS2eywVTbieEaaB7NxKqSZk98JQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRZL_k3t%2B%2Bo2BLjMi3ZS2eywVTbieEaaB7NxKqSZk98JQ%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/CAMW2kApFpwQp1YgzqAg4hc9VJA%2B3G1HQabjOdqoLD5xtUTHDdw%40mail.gmail.com.
