On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 7:59 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote:
*> The important point that I am taking from Everett is that > the Schrodinger equation is the whole of quantum physics (Carroll's idea). > If the wave function of the SE does not collapse (and there is no collapse > in the Schrodinger equation), then every possible component of any > superposition certainly exists, and continues to exist. * Yes, many worlds is bare-bones Quantum Mechanics, it contains everything that's needed and nothing more. The only reason people add additional mathematical gunk is they personally dislike all those worlds for one reason or another and want to get rid of them. I think Schrodinger's Equation is hard enough to solve as it is and needlessly making it even more complicated is not progress. *> You're saying that since Everett says some sequence occurs he is > predicting it with probability 1.* Everett Is saying a world exists where 30 seconds from now all the air molecules in the room you're in right now gather in one small corner due to random motion and you suffocate. But all Everettian worlds are not equal, they have different Complex Number amplitudes. The square of the absolute value of the amplitude of such a world would be the probability of you being in such a world and experiencing suffocation, and that positive real number although greater than zero would be extremely small. And I do mean extremely! *> it is relatively easy to see that there is no way in this picture for > the self-locating uncertainty to favour any probability other that p = 0.5* That is just flat out untrue. If you want to know the probability that you will be in a universe (there will be many not just one) in which you observe the electron go left rather than right you need to take the square of the absolute value of the amplitude of that electron and, depending on the specific circumstances of how the experiment is set up, that might or might not be 0.5. It can't be emphasized too much that Everettian worlds don't have positive real number probabilities associated with them, they have complex number amplitudes. > > *The existence of observers who see sequences of results far from the > relative frequencies predicted by the Born rule is an > unambiguous consequence of Everett's approach* > Yes, Everett says there will be observers who see all sorts of bazaar astronomically unlikely events, but the square of the absolute value of the amplitude of such worlds is extremely small, so the probability you will observe such a world is also extremely small. > *The Born rule predicts low probability for certain sequences, * Yes. *> Everett predicts that such sequences necessarily occur. * Yes. > *the charge is one of inconsistency* Yes that is the charge. No I don't see any inconsistency. 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/CAJPayv1yg5m6XgryVBmC27ZuS2Bx2kudZwBoXYB93E98vMtWSA%40mail.gmail.com.
