On 7/4/2021 5:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 6:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
On 7/4/2021 5:17 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:51:51 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:
And in the two-outcome experiment, how do you ever get a
probability different from 0.5 for each possible outcome?
You would seem to be looking for a branch counting
explanation of probability (self-locating uncertainty). But
there is no mechanism in Everett or the Schrodinger
equation to give anything other than a 50/50 split when only
two outcomes are possible. This is wildly at variance with
experience.
In the classical example with balls you may have a collection of
blue and red balls so there are only two possible outcomes of a
random selection of a ball: blue and red. This doesn't mean that
the proportion of blue and red balls in the collection must be
50/50. Why would the proportion of branching worlds necessarily
be 50/50 if there are only two possible outcomes?
It's not that it's necessarily 50/50; it's that there's no
mechanism for it being the values in the Schroedinger equation. In
one world A happens. In the other world B happens. How does, for
example, a 16:9 ratio get implemented. There's nothing in
Schroedinger's equation that assigns one of those numbers to one
world or the other. You can just make it an axiom. Or
equivalently, if you can show these are odds ratios, you can
invoke Gleason's theorem as the only consistent probability
measure. But all that is extra stuff that MWI claims to avoid by
just being pure Schroedinger equation evolution.
Brent
Is this question unique to MW?
Do Copenhagen/GRW/QBism/Transactional/Bohm have any advantage(s) in
explaining the Born rule?
Yes. They don't pretend that all you need is the Schroedinger equation
and linear evolution of the state. They explicitly recognize that you
need a probability interpretation to connect with observations.
Brent
I don't understand the problem that's unique to MW.
Jason
--
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
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/44aceed9-5408-9dc0-ebcb-436765a7df23%40verizon.net
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/44aceed9-5408-9dc0-ebcb-436765a7df23%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjA7u%2BF7R4qhjby%2BcBBYBZ2kirPCfTV6-oYk8tQf%2Bs6Lw%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjA7u%2BF7R4qhjby%2BcBBYBZ2kirPCfTV6-oYk8tQf%2Bs6Lw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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/029a1053-cbc1-0070-30e0-ad085140200e%40verizon.net.
