Le mer. 26 févr. 2025, 01:53, Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > > On 2/25/2025 5:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 11:01:11AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 2/24/2025 6:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Your claim that "one observer per branch" follows directly from > unitary > evolution is an assumption, not a derivation. > > > No, it is a straightforward derivation from the formalism. If you don't > understand that, it is just further confirmation of the fact that you > understand very little about quantum mechanics. > > Not at all - it is an assumption you're making, and the nub of the entire > argument between you and Quentin. > > Do you understand Quentin's theory? ISTM it's just "Observer counting" > where the counts instantiate the Born rule ex hypothesi. It's branch > counting by another name. > > Brent > Brent, You’re still misrepresenting the argument. It’s not branch counting under another name, it’s about how measure determines observer frequencies. The issue is whether the number of observer instances scales with amplitude squared, not whether we simply count branches. If all branches were weighted equally, MWI would have been dead on arrival, because it wouldn’t match experiments. The claim that “one observer per branch” is a direct consequence of unitary evolution is just an assumption, it’s not something derived from the Schrödinger equation. Everett’s original formulation was about relative states, not discrete worlds with single, isolated observers. If you start from a continuously evolving wavefunction, then what we call “a branch” is a convenient approximation, not a fundamental unit. If you’re convinced that observer frequencies cannot be tied to amplitudes, the burden is on you to explain why amplitudes govern every other quantum phenomenon yet suddenly become irrelevant when it comes to probability. You need more than “MWI doesn’t work”, you need to show why no measure-based derivation of the Born rule is possible, rather than dismissing attempts to derive it. Also implying 1 observer per branch implies some kind of duplication at every measurements whereas my view implies differentiation of pre-existing infinitely superposed branches. Quentin > > -- > 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/ff669777-b532-4b09-a442-b9c6d672d9e5%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ff669777-b532-4b09-a442-b9c6d672d9e5%40gmail.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/CAMW2kApyHfBpS18ZBrL%2B8nwtoETYQSrwoqHvrqV9KzFqRmGwhA%40mail.gmail.com.
