On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 6:30 PM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bruce, > > Listing 2^N sequences does not prove that measure is irrelevant. Yes, all > sequences exist, but that does not mean they all contribute equally to an > observer’s experience. Your argument assumes that each sequence corresponds > to exactly one branch with exactly one observer, but nothing in unitary > evolution enforces such a strict partitioning. > > Branches are not necessarily discrete, isolated entities—they could always > remain in a superposition of infinite sub-branches, with measure > determining the relative weight of each. If measure partitions reality > rather than simply labeling sequences, then high-measure branches dominate > experience, naturally leading to the Born rule. > > Your argument assumes its conclusion: that each sequence corresponds to > one and only one branch, with no role for measure. But you haven’t proven > this—just asserted it. > You are simply ignoring the case I made. This discussion will not go anywhere as long as you don't listen. Bruce The fact is that you get the same 2^N binary sequences from the binary state |psi> = a|0> + b|1> whatever the values of a and b. My case is proven. 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/CAFxXSLTFTuuAsD4U58%3DdaCT8iUy9VVknhfi%2B7%2B%2Btrjz4bg5YAA%40mail.gmail.com.
