On 03-05-2022 14:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 9:40 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
On 28-04-2022 02:14, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 4/27/2022 2:00 PM, smitra wrote:
If you agree, and are prepared,
with me, to throw out Everett, then we agree, and there is
nothing
more to be argued about (at least, until you present some
different complete theory).
I'm open to the idea that QM itself may only be an approximation
to
a more fundamental theory. The arguments in favor of no collapse
are
strong arguments but you then do get this issue with probability
that you have discussed here. The disagreement with you about
this
is that I don't see it as a fatal inconsistency that would prove
the MWI to be wrong. Probabilities for the different branches do
not
have to be equal. But that doesn't mean that this looks to be a
rather unnatural feature of the theory. This suggests that a more
fundamental theory exists from which one could derive quantum
mechanics with its formalism involving amplitudes and the Born
rule
as an approximation.
If there are probabilities attached to the branches, then
Gleason's
theorem shows that the probabilities must satisfy the Born rule.
So I
don't seen any inconsistency in simply saying they are
probabilities
of measurement results, that's Copenhagen. But if they are
probabilities of results that implies that some things happen and
others don't...other wise what does "probability" mean and what
use is
it as an empirical concept? That brings back the original problem
of
CI, where and how is this happening defined?
If there are 3 copies of an observer and 2 experience outcome A and
1
experiences outcome B then the probability of the observer
experiencing
outcome B is 1/3. Here we should note that the personal identity of
an
observer is determined by all the information in the brain and is
therefore different from the different outcomes. So, we always have
(slightly) different observers observing different things, which is
not
all that different from starting with 3 different people of whom 2
experience outcome A and 1 experiences outcome B.
That's just branch counting, which is known not to work.
The complete physical state is not in doubt in this case. In your
argument you apply your reasoning to QM but you remove the information
about the amplitudes from the wavefunction so you replace QM by a Straw
Man version of QM that then fails to describe the real world correctly.
While MWI is QM minus collapse, what you do is consider MWI minus
collapse minus Born rule, then argue that this doesn't work and that
therefore the MWI is wrong.
Saibal
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/CAFxXSLQy0WgCuwwkv6%2B-z6H5o1r3OgZRZywq%3Di0zEUXaoC-MHw%40mail.gmail.com
[1].
Links:
------
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQy0WgCuwwkv6%2B-z6H5o1r3OgZRZywq%3Di0zEUXaoC-MHw%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/403fa7da3f45d1ce42ea41e42f16680c%40zonnet.nl.
