On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 4:05 PM 'Brent Meeker' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> It's not assumed its concluded based on overwhelming experimental > evidence > > * > But in the theory that's just adding the Born rule on empirical > evidence. * > In physics empirical evidence is the *only* reason you add anything. > > *For the same reason it implies that only one world is realized.* > How does the empirical evidence from the 2 slit experiment imply there is only one world? > > *Given unitary evolut Probability can be conserved just by renormalizing > as in CI, whatever the rule.* > But given the fact that the Schrodinger Equation is 100% deterministic what is the physical reason we must deal with probabilities at all? MWI can help us understand why. > *>> If you ask "probabilities of what?" in MWI the answer can't be >> probability of existing because MWI has committed to all solutions* > > > But it can be the probability that something similar to me as I am right > now will see Moscow in one second, I say "similar" because the me that > might see Moscow in one second would not be exactly the same as the me of > right now because that me would see Moscow and I don't right now. > * > OK, how similar does that something have to be.* > 42. How similar does Moscow have to be to be counted as Moscow? > > *Does it have to be conscious? * > *NO!* >> I'll be damned if i can see what consciousness has to do with it. The > Born rule would also give the probability a film camera with a automatic > one second timer will take a picture that when developed will turn out to > be a picture of Moscow. > > * > But according to MWI it will also take a picture of Washington. * > Yes. That's why the Born Rule can only give probabilities. Under the right circumstances you might be able to say the developed picture will probably be Moscow, but some version of you will see Washington, and there is a non zero probability a electron can tunnel through a energy barrier that it could never do if classical physics was true. Nobody is claiming the MWI allows predictions to be made with total certainty. > *The Born rule isn't part of MWI...it has to derived* > This is physics not mathematics, the Born rule isn't derived it's observed, and it's observed to work. > *(or more often just borrowed from CI).* > The CI doesn't own the Born Rule, neither does the MWI. All modern interpretations of quantum mechanics are compatible with the Born Rule, they had better be! If one wasn't nobody would be foolish enough to be talking about it today. > > *Suppose the camera is triggered by the decay of a radioactive atom > and it is taking a picture of a clock. What time will it have on its > film? * > I can't give you a certain answer, only a probability. * > Must we suppose there are an uncountable infinity worlds with different > times recorded?* > Carroll admits in his book that it isn't clear if there are a denumerably infinite number of worlds or a larger infinity, in fact there may not be a infinite number of worlds at all, there might only be an astronomical number to a astronomical power of them. I like Many Worlds because it gives me a little intuitive understanding why we can only make probabilistic predictions even though the underlying mathematics is completely deterministic, and I like it because it gives a precise definition of "measurement". Of course just because I like it doesn't mean it can't be dead wrong. But I would bet money on one thing, if the MWI is wrong then something even stranger is true. John K Clark -- 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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1OLw6nAnj5ALgCCzDT1MQiKyDBEHSzcpvnNp0N0%3Di9eA%40mail.gmail.com.
