On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 3:34 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> > It's because Bruce takes the Born probability as the probability that some > sequence exists (i.e. 1) instead of the probability it is the observed > sequence, ( |a|^2 ). > That is the source of the disagreement. There are two possible questions: 1) In the N repeats of the binary outcome experiment, what is the probability that the sequence containing all ones will occur?; and 2) what is the probability in this scenario that I will experience the sequence of all ones? If we are using the theory to calculate probabilities, the first question is the relevant one, and the theory gives two different answers , so the theory is inconsistent. If our concern is only about ourselves, and not about what the theory says, then the second question is the appropriate one. Then there is no inconsistency, because we know that we will only see one sequence -- which one we do see can only be determined post hoc, and that is not a probabilistic matter. The 1p/3p confusion here is all yours, not mine. What gives you the right to maintain that the Born rule is only about what you will experience? And not about objective probabilities? 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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRjVMNg8oNs3uTgNb4MyQPr9QCTXTG6jGZwowmc%3D47soA%40mail.gmail.com.
