On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 7:35 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
*>>> So how do you accommodate a situation in which there is a 90% chance >>> of seeing Moscow and a 10% chance of seeing Helsinki?* >>> >> >> >> You've asked that exact same question several times before so I'll >> answer it the exact same way I did before because you never made an >> argument against what I said, you just keep asking the same question again. >> If I know the duplicating machine has made 10 copies of me and that 9 of >> them are in Helsinki and 1 is in Moscow then then 9 John Clark's will >> remember seeing Helsinki but only 1 will remember seeing Moscow; so if >> they place odds after the duplication but before the door was opened and >> they observe where they are they would all say there was a 90% chance >> they were in Helsinki, and 90% of them would turn out to be correct >> and would win their bet. >> > > *> The trouble is that the duplicating machine makes only one copy, so > there is one for Moscow and one for Helsinki. There are no multiple copies > in the original scenario. Changing the nature of the question is not an > answer.* > Huh?! The question asked of me was how could I explain a 90% chance of seeing Moscow and a 10% chance of seeing Helsinki and I have done so. If only one copy has been made then there would *NOT* be a 90% chance of seeing Moscow and a 10% chance of seeing Helsinki. > > *So I ask again, how do you accommodate a situation in which there is > a 90% chance of being on one branch and a 10% chance of being on the other > branch* And I would answer that question exactly precisely the same way I have already answered it so many times before and absolutely refused to do again until somebody points to an objection I haven't already answered a dozen times before. *> Changing the number of branches (or duplicates) is fine in a > general theory, but not in QM. The SE gives only one branch for each > outcome.* > And moving one hydrogen atom in your big toe (or even the big toe of your neighbor across the street) one nanometer to the left is a change that will split a universe if MWI is correct, but that outcome will not make a difference to your conscious experience, at least not immediately, perhaps in time it will due to classical chaos but that's irrelevant for this discussion. > *> What you are really saying is that the SE is inconsistent with the Born > rule -- a point I have been making all along.* > We already know mathematically that if you want to get probabilities out of the wave equation and have all the probabilities add up to exactly 1 and none of the probabilities have a negative value (and you need those things for the very concept of probability to make any sense) then the Born rule is the only way to do it; I think that's why Brent said "*Explaining the values of the probabilities isn't the problem with MWI, it's explaining that there **are** probabilities**". *I guess for some reason you disagree with Brent. John K Clark See what's on my new list at *Extropolis* <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> zmv -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3a1L_NrGFEx51fOfaDxoXRNaudu-uxPZMp_6qMuMSy%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.
