On Friday, November 15, 2024 at 7:38:06 PM UTC-7 Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 12:02:14AM -0800, Alan Grayson wrote: > As I see it, JC's core claim about the MWI is that it follows from S's > equation It comes about by not making any further assumptions, like the wavefunction collapse of CI, or pilot waves of Bohmian mechanics which privilege one branch over the others. > ; namely, that anything *that* can happen (has a non-zero probability), > must happen (in some world). I fail to see anything in S's equation to support > this claim. And, I fail to see JC argue for this claim. Thus, IMO, I've put the > nail in the coffin to the MWI. AG > You think! Yes, I do. It's obvious we use the frequentist probability theory in QM because we use *multiple trials* to get the interference pattern in slit experiments. So, the probabilities in S's equation imply we need multiple trials (in this world) to realize these probabilities. There's no suggestion of other worlds where these probabilities are realized. And note; the main advocate of MWI, JC, refuses to engage this argument. Like I wrote above; this puts the nail in the coffin of the MWI. AG -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9c8ad37d-2aad-4068-b027-b98b551338a1n%40googlegroups.com.
