Le ven. 13 sept. 2024, 11:39, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 19:31 Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 6:45 PM Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> 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? >>> >> >> No. Randomness includes the notion of a probability distribution. >> > > If the probability of an event is 0 or 1 it is determined, otherwise it > is random. > There must be some kind of measure, if none, and everything happens with the same weight how can that account for what we see... i don't expect to transform in a tea pot the next second... so some kind of measure is at play. > -- > 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%3D2ypV5q%2BrMSsKNgJUgM8ZMamU0nh%2Be9EB5SaWK6jyK1Gyw%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypV5q%2BrMSsKNgJUgM8ZMamU0nh%2Be9EB5SaWK6jyK1Gyw%2Bg%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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAqd1M%2BuD1oLxdr%3Dzb5hKLyZ3EAh2eoX-0xDNzzEJqmdwg%40mail.gmail.com.
