Bruce, You keep resorting to dismissing ideas as "not part of unitary QM" without addressing the core issue: unitary evolution alone does not yield probabilities, yet we observe the Born rule. If you reject any attempt to derive it within MWI, then you’re left assuming it outright—just like any other interpretation.
Claiming I’m "introducing ideas from elsewhere" is just a rhetorical move to avoid engaging with the actual problem. If you have a coherent way to explain probability from unitary evolution alone, without invoking Born’s rule externally, then present it. Otherwise, your argument amounts to gatekeeping rather than a real refutation. Also, for the hundredth time, I’m not an advocate of MWI. Unlike you, I’m not being dishonest in this debate. Your so-called "refutation" is nothing more than a narrow and rigid misrepresentation of what MWI actually proposes. The real dishonesty is pretending that you’ve proven something you haven’t, while dismissing counterarguments without proper engagement. Quentin All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) Le mar. 11 mars 2025, 23:15, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> a écrit : > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 2:11 PM Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 12:29:57PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> > >> > It does not prevent a probabilistic interpretation, but it does not >> give one >> > either. You have assumed statistical physics, which introduces a large >> dose of >> > probability theory. That does not come from the deterministic theory -- >> you >> > have to introduce it from elsewhere. >> > >> > So with quantum mechanics. The wave function, being deterministic, does >> not >> > have a probabilistic interpretation until you introduce one from >> elsewhere. >> >> I'm well aware of that. I guess you're disputing the "MWI is nothing >> but the Schroedinger equation" statement that John Clark sometimes >> makes. >> > > Yes. At least JC is consistent with this, as are people like Carroll, > Deutsch and Wallace. I find it harder to deal with people, like Quentin, > who are basically dishonest; who claim to be working with Everettian > quantum mechanics, but continually introduce ideas from elsewhere -- ideas > that have no basis in unitary quantum mechanics. > > As soon as you have self-location indeterminancy (or first person >> indeterminancy, I think we called it here), probabilities march right >> on in. And as soon as you have computationalism (and I would argue >> functionalism), self-location indeterminancy marches right on in. That >> was the point of Bruno Marchal's Universal Dovetailer Argument. >> > > But that has never made any realistic connection with either quantum > mechanics or with observational results. > > So the question is how would you do the MWI _without_ >> probabilities. David Deutsch is working on a possible solution to >> that, although I'm a little sceptical he can make it work. >> > > I think your scepticism is not misplaced. Deutsch has a tendency to go off > the rails on occasion. > > 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/CAFxXSLTMga-UNDPg%2BEzKorrewxgOtzk%2BvHEeVUX097G0sWTg1w%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTMga-UNDPg%2BEzKorrewxgOtzk%2BvHEeVUX097G0sWTg1w%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/CAMW2kAofO%2BD-N20NLSaxq1tBx%2Bdt4Lex19tbpUCMqmw3_xBqzg%40mail.gmail.com.
