On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 09:57:42PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > On 6/9/2014 9:51 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > >On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:39:14PM +1200, LizR wrote: > >>On 10 June 2014 14:52, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> > >>>On 6/9/2014 6:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > >>> > >>>>OK - there are 2 future branches, A and B, each of which have equal > >>>>objective probability of occurring. Ie the Born rule says each has a > >>>>probability of 0.5. > >>>> > >>>>However, perhaps _subjectively_, Alice sees branch A with probability > >>>>0.9 and branch B with probability 0.1, and Bob sees branch A with > >>>>probability 0.1 and branch B with probability 0.9. > >>>> > >>>If there are only two branches then Alice see each with probability 1.0. > >>> From a bird's eye view you can renormalize this and call it 0.5. But I > >>>don't see any way to even assign meaning to 0.1 or 0.9 when the branch > >>>probabilities are 0.5. > >>> > >>Me neither. Glad we agree on something :-) > >> > >>Over to you, Russell. What are we missing? > >> > >The probabilities are those of entering branch A or B from the > >unbranched state the precedes them. > > > >You're making an assumption that this measure is proportional to the > >cardinality of those branches. I'm making no such assumption. That's all. > > I'm not assuming branch counting. I'm assuming the branches can > have real valued probabilities per the Born rule. What seems > incoherent is to say that branch A occurs with probability p but > Alice experiences it with probability q. If Alice is in branch A > then she experiences it /period/. And the meaning of the Born > probabilities for Alice are the relative frequencies with which she > sees A-events as compared to B-events in repetitions of the > branching. >
Good. Maybe it was Liz that was assuming branch counting. Note if the Born rule were ever violated subjectively for an observer, how would we ever know if objectively the Born rule still applied. The derivation of the Born rule I give in my book assumes the observer does nothing other than choose the measurement basis. I can't see any way of being able to rule out "magic" in this way, other than it is something not scientifically communicable, and hence outside Science's "magisterium". And that's pretty much where I'd leave it too - I don't think there's much else to say. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
