On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 6:21:49 AM UTC-5 Bruce wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:49 PM Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 1:54:34 AM UTC-5 Bruce wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 4:40 PM Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Le ven. 4 sept. 2020 à 00:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Sure. But Albert's argument is that in a single, probabilistic world >>>>> that implements Born's rule, the number of scientist who find something >>>>> contrary to Born's rule goes to zero as the number of repetitions >>>>> increases. But in the multiverse there are always contrary worlds and, >>>>> while their fraction decreases, their number increases with repetitions. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's an interpretation... because I think there is no increasing or >>>> decreasing of numbers of worlds.... there are an infinity of them always, >>>> similar / identical "world" differentiate but there is no increase or >>>> decrease, there is no meaningfull way of "counting"... The frequency is >>>> all >>>> there is. >>>> >>> >>> >>> That does not detract from the fact that in Everett, the low probability >>> worlds always occur with probability one. In other words, the theory is >>> intrinsically self-contradictory -- incoherent. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >> >> I am not so sure this is self-contradictory, but rather that with the >> renormalization of probability in each branched world there is a sort of >> catastrophe where for some oscillating probability amplitude there is one >> point where P = 0 or P = 1 and the branching has a discontinuity. Hence >> there is this interesting nonlocal property where an eigenbranch can occur >> continuously along the time parametrization or evolution of a wave >> function, but this is not continuous. For extremely high frequency quantum >> states this has a sort of quantum Zeno phenomenology to it. At these >> break-points there is only one possible outcome and for a set of events >> corresponding to these there is no consistent Bayesian interpretation of >> them. In that sense there is something funny going on. >> > > > You do talk a lot of nonsense, don't you, Lawrence. > > Bruce >
What is nonsense? All I am saying is when the probability for an amplitude is 0 or 1 there is no branching. So in general a quantum amplitude has a discrete set of branching evolutes separated by no branching points. What is wrong? LC -- 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/10bde701-034d-4abd-b726-f552c31c9b2bn%40googlegroups.com.
