On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 6:39 PM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > Have you ever heard of repeated experiments? Bruce -- 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/CAFxXSLRi46%2B4v7Si6zFBSijV9FeKFdBS3YzydLTA5Txe7Qx%2BzA%40mail.gmail.com.
