Brent, You say that unrealized possibilities are what probabilities quantify, but in a single-history framework, those possibilities never had any existence beyond the formalism. If only one history is real, then all other possibilities were never actually possible in any meaningful way—they were never real candidates for realization, just mathematical constructs. That’s not an emotive argument; it’s pointing out that the entire notion of probability in such a framework is detached from anything real.
If probability is supposed to quantify real possibilities, then in a world where only one history exists for all eternity, what exactly is being quantified? If an event with a calculated probability of 50% never happens in this one history, then its true probability was always 0%. Your framework claims to allow for multiple possibilities, but in practice, it only ever realizes one, making the rest nothing more than empty labels. And you assert that alternatives have a "grounding in reality"—but what does that mean in a framework where they never actually happen? If they had a genuine grounding, they would have to be part of reality in some form, even if only probabilistically. But in a single-history framework, that never happens. The probabilities exist only in the mind of the observer, with no external ontological reality. They are tools that describe nothing but a retrospective justification of what already happened. The supposed "problem" in MWI—that all possibilities are realized—actually solves this issue. It gives probabilities a real basis in the structure of the universe rather than treating them as abstract bookkeeping. The probabilities describe real distributions across real histories rather than referring to things that were never real to begin with. The single-world view wants to use probability while simultaneously denying the existence of the things probability refers to. That’s not just emotive talk—it’s a contradiction at the foundation of the framework. Quentin Le mar. 4 févr. 2025, 23:22, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > On 2/4/2025 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > The fundamental absurdity of single-history frameworks becomes clear when > we consider the reliance on theoretical constructs that, by definition, > never exist and never will. How can one justify using mathematical tools > that invoke nonexistent possibilities to explain a reality where only one > sequence of events is ever realized? If something never existed, has no > causal influence, and will never exist in any possible future, how does it > play any role in explaining what does exist? > > This contradiction is evident in interpretations like Bohmian mechanics, > where the pilot wave guides particles but remains completely unobservable > and uninteractive beyond that role. It’s an invisible, untouchable entity > that affects matter but is never affected in return—something that is > functionally indistinguishable from the pure abstractions of probability > waves in a single-world interpretation. In both cases, explanations rely on > constructs that have no true existence beyond their mathematical form. > > A single-history universe that leans on unrealized possibilities to > justify probability > > "Justify"?? Unrealized possibilities are what probabilities quantify. If > all possibilities were realized the wouldn't have probabilities assigned to > them...exactly the problem that arises in MWI. > > is making an implicit appeal to something that doesn’t and will never > exist. It treats the wavefunction as a real tool for calculating outcomes > while simultaneously denying that the alternatives it describes have any > grounding in reality. This is the absurdity: how can something that never > existed be part of an explanation for what does? > > That is just a lot of emotive talk. All the alternatives have a > "grounding in reality"; that's what makes the possibilities with definite > probabilities. > > Brent > > > In contrast, in a many-worlds framework, all possibilities exist and are > real branches of the wavefunction, providing an actual basis for > probability. The probabilities are not just mathematical conveniences; they > describe distributions of real outcomes across real histories. This removes > the need for metaphysical hand-waving about non-existent possibilities > influencing reality. > > If physics is about describing reality, then relying on things that are, > by construction, eternally non-existent to justify observed phenomena is > conceptually incoherent. It is an attempt to have it both ways—to use > abstract possibilities when convenient while denying their reality when > inconvenient. That contradiction is why single-history frameworks > ultimately fail to provide a satisfying foundation for probability and > existence itself. > > Quentin > > Le mar. 4 févr. 2025, 19:03, John Clark <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> >> On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 12:56 PM '[email protected]' via Everything List >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> *> Bohmian mechanics v Everett-DeWiit-Wheeler? * >>> *For Carroll, it probably means they're the same. Indistinguishable. * >>> >> >> *This is what I said about that about a month ago: * >> >> >> *Pilot Wave Theory keeps Schrodinger's Equation but needs to add another >> entirely new very complicated equation called the Pilot Wave Equation that >> contains non-local variables. When an electron enters the two slit >> experiment the Pilot Wave in effect produces a little arrow pointing to one >> of the electrons with the caption under it saying "this is the real >> electron, ignore all the other ones". The Pilot Wave does absolutely >> nothing except erase unwanted universes, it is for this reason that some >> have called Pilot Wave theory the Many Worlds theory in denial. * >> >> *The Pilot Wave is unique in another way, it can affect matter but matter >> cannot affect it, if it's real it would be the first time in the history of >> physics where an exception to Newton's credo that for every action there is >> a reaction; even after the object it is pointing to is destroyed the pilot >> wave continues on, although now it is pointing at nothing and has no >> further effect on anything in the universe. Also, nobody has ever been able >> to make a relativistic version of the Pilot Wave Equation.Paul dirac found >> a version of Schrodinger's Equation that was compatible with special >> relativity as early as 1927. * >> >> *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis >> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* >> 8b0 >> >> -- >> 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/CAJPayv3JL9f40jD-4qG0ry6z38ZtVysrh9RhE%2BDirJrSWzaX-w%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3JL9f40jD-4qG0ry6z38ZtVysrh9RhE%2BDirJrSWzaX-w%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 visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAopDs_qGcSEgaZJdrDUu7qgMzWgvNbE4EPFgw5pxRBQcA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAopDs_qGcSEgaZJdrDUu7qgMzWgvNbE4EPFgw5pxRBQcA%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 visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ab8b9168-9459-476b-9b9b-930c6763289a%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ab8b9168-9459-476b-9b9b-930c6763289a%40gmail.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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAp7UGDVrCzGRnrucy%3DzYRUgOM0-o1X7Vhs1j6c5GVQygg%40mail.gmail.com.
