On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 7:02 PM Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bruce, > > You claim that your argument proves MWI is inconsistent with the Born > rule, but what you’ve actually shown is that naive branch counting doesn’t > work, something Everettians already acknowledge. The real question is > whether measure, derived from amplitudes, determines observer frequencies, > and your argument does not disprove that. > > Decoherence is not about making branches "disappear", it’s about > preventing interference, which allows classical-like behavior to emerge. If > low-amplitude branches exist but do not significantly contribute to > observer experiences, that’s exactly what would give rise to Born-rule > statistics. Your response doesn’t refute this; it simply denies that > amplitudes matter beyond formal calculations, which contradicts all of > quantum theory outside of measurement. > > You state that unitary evolution directly leads to "one observer per > branch," but that’s an assumption based on a discrete branching picture > that Everett himself didn’t use. The wavefunction remains continuous, and > what we call "a branch" is just an approximation of decoherence-selected > states. > > If you believe the Born rule must simply be assumed rather than derived, > then fine, but that applies to all interpretations, not just MWI. If you > claim MWI is falsified, then demonstrate why no derivation of the Born rule > from unitary evolution is possible, instead of repeating that it hasn’t > been done. And if your so-called "proof" is airtight, publish it, surely > the physics community will be thrilled to see a definitive refutation of > MWI. But you won’t, because you know it’s flawed. > > Instead, you’d rather sit here, dismissing any disagreement as stupidity > while avoiding any real engagement with the open question. You’re not > debating in good faith, you’re just clinging to your priors and throwing > insults at those who don’t share them. > > If you’re so convinced of your argument, be decent enough to confront it > with actual peer review instead of just parading it around this list. Or is > that too much to ask? > You are repeating yourself. And your arguments are all based on your own madcap theory. Why don't you actually approach the questions from the point of view of standard Everettian theory? 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/CAFxXSLRG9xBWw67mAdSPsb4tW-6b1GQvOmArvxXU9mKTD7%2BmvQ%40mail.gmail.com.
