Stathis Papaioannou
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 18:15 Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Le ven. 13 sept. 2024, 10:12, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> a > écrit : > >> >> >> On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 17:30, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 5:23 PM Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 15:08, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 1:07 PM Liz R <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think that works. The idea often put forward is something >>>>>>> along the lines of self-locating uncertainty -- out of all the branches, >>>>>>> which one am I on? But that is only apparent randomness, and to get >>>>>>> such an >>>>>>> idea to work, you need to be able to make a random choice between >>>>>>> branches. >>>>>>> Such randomness will be intrinsic in that It doesn't come from anywhere >>>>>>> else (it is not already part of the theory). So in order to generate >>>>>>> such >>>>>>> apparent randomness you actually need an independent source of intrinsic >>>>>>> randomness (to be able to make your self-locating choice.) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The intrinsic randomness arises from the fact that it is impossible >>>>>> to predict which branch you will end up in, even for an omniscient being. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That is just a restatement of the traditional measurement problem. >>>>> Self-locating uncertainty is not intrinsic randomness. What is it that >>>>> selects which branch you are actually on? You need some means of random >>>>> selection which is not included in the underlying theory. You have to add, >>>>> by hand, some additional principle of randomness, such as the Born Rule. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nothing selects which branch you will be on, since with certainty a >>>> version of you will end up in each branch. If the omniscient being predicts >>>> that you will end up in branch A, the prediction is wrong for the version >>>> of you in branch B, and if the omniscient being predicts that you will end >>>> up in branch B the prediction is wrong for the version of you in branch A. >>>> It is logically impossible to make an accurate prediction. >>>> >>> >>> It is unfortunate, therefore, that all real experiments result in just >>> one answer, which is the nub of the measurement problem. Which answer is >>> unpredictable, but that does not mean that there can be some omniscient >>> being that can predict your result. It is a matter of an intrinsic >>> probability -- *viz*. the Born Rule. >>> >> >> The branching makes the outcome fundamentally unpredictable, which is >> what randomness is. It results from the branching and nothing else. It is >> not specific to QM or MWI: it results from any process where the observer >> branches. >> > > The thing is to recover the born rules, some frequency must be in play, > some things are more likely than other, if you had to make a bet, it's > important and you wouldn't bet every outcome is equally likely. > Isn’t that separate from the question of whether the randomness an observer sees in MWI is truly random? > -- 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/CAH%3D2ypX%3D-6XP4e637DU2GDcqrF8f%2BP1Ft3Su8DwU66dZ%2BU%2BB2g%40mail.gmail.com.
