On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 20:05, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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. > How would you describe the difference between a deterministic and indeterministic model? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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%3D2ypUV8zKkT%2Bv5W0mO_1bwZSTRHw4eC%2BU41h5XMoD8uvFNYw%40mail.gmail.com.
