Well as I see it, we can't discuss on this list without violence, since you seems to see yourself as a hugh end hyper intelligent human being, I'll stop right here. Stay with your kind. Bye
Le mar. 11 févr. 2025, 11:47, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> a écrit : > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 6:29 PM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Bruce, >> >> Your argument assumes that all branches are equally weighted in terms of >> observer experience, which contradicts what we actually see in quantum >> experiments. The claim that the Schrödinger equation is "insensitive" to >> amplitudes is incorrect. The amplitudes evolve deterministically under the >> Schrödinger equation and define the measure associated with each outcome. >> The Born rule does not need to be "inserted" into MWI—it emerges naturally >> if one considers measure as determining how many observer instances >> experience each outcome. >> >> Your claim that there are exactly 2^N observers after N trials and that >> each one "counts equally" ignores what measure represents. The fundamental >> point is that not all branches contribute equally to what an observer >> experiences. Yes, an observer exists on every branch, but that does not >> mean they exist in equal numbers. >> >> In standard probability theory, an event occurring in more instances is >> simply more likely to be observed. Similarly, in MWI: >> >> A branch with a higher amplitude means there are exponentially more >> copies of the observer experiencing that outcome. >> > > Your argument might be more convincing if any of this actually followed > from the Schrodinger equation. > > > This is not "assigning degrees of existence"—it is stating that measure >> determines how many versions of an observer find themselves in a given >> sequence. >> >> You can call this "silly," but it's the only way MWI remains consistent >> with experiments. If each observer counted equally across all branches, we >> would expect uniform probabilities, contradicting the Born rule. >> > > The fact is that MWI is not consistent with experiment since the different > sequences in repeated trials on similarly prepared systems fail to give > frequencies in accordance with the Born rule. > > > > > >> The Schrödinger equation is not "insensitive" to amplitudes; it governs >> their evolution. The amplitudes define how much of the total wavefunction >> exists in each outcome. Saying that amplitudes are "inert" is like saying >> that in classical probability, event frequencies are "inert" because the >> probability distribution does not dynamically change per trial. >> > > Nonsense. > > The fact that amplitudes don’t directly affect local observations does not >> mean they are irrelevant. You do not need to "see" probability >> distributions to experience their effects. In classical cases, you observe >> probabilities through frequency distributions—not because you see an >> abstract probability function floating in space. >> > > No, you observe probabilities because some things happen while others > don't. > > > Similarly, in MWI, you experience the effects of amplitude-based measure >> because the majority of your copies exist in branches that follow the Born >> rule. >> > > There is no mathematical justification for such a proposition. > > > Your argument frames measure as a metaphysical claim about "degrees of >> existence," but that’s a strawman. Measure is not about some observers >> being "more real" than others—it’s about how many instances of a given >> observer exist in different branches. >> > > That is how you have used the concept, since there is only one copy of you > as the observer on each branch -- that is what the Schrodinger equation > says. All else is fantasy. > > > Imagine a lottery where some numbers are printed millions of times and >> others are printed once. Saying "each ticket exists, so all are equal" >> ignores the fact that you are overwhelmingly more likely to pick a ticket >> that was printed millions of times. >> >> This is exactly what happens in MWI: >> >> Yes, every sequence of outcomes exists. >> >> But observers overwhelmingly find themselves in high-measure sequences >> because there are simply more instances of them there. >> > > That is not the case. If it were, then you could get that result from the > Schrodinger equation. But you can't. > > > If your claim were correct, quantum mechanics would fail to match >> experiment, because the observed frequencies would not match the Born rule. >> Since that never happens, the conclusion is clear: measure, not naive >> branch counting, determines what observers experience. >> > > MWI does not match experiments, because it cannot get the Born rule. You > cannot even consistently impose the Born rule on Evettian theory. > > Yes, there is currently no clear cut theories to recover the born rule >> from Schrödinger equation alone, doesn’t mean there aren't. >> > > I see, you are just not clever enough to see how it all works! > > > Also I'm not an advocate of MWI per se, I prefer information theory >> approach from which we should be able to recover MW like theories and a >> measure (maybe mixing some UD and speed prior) >> > > Since you are not clever enough to see how it all works, it might be > better if you stopped laying down the law to those who can see more clearly. > > 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/CAFxXSLT705r0mBnnxsXzgAHLatyCF%2BKTjRbkZgR9HOFKN3vbwQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLT705r0mBnnxsXzgAHLatyCF%2BKTjRbkZgR9HOFKN3vbwQ%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/CAMW2kApYAL-_CKSziFz%2B5CXvSdpw%2B_EGM011NZ37w08X0z9%2ByQ%40mail.gmail.com.
