Le ven. 14 févr. 2025, 06:13, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > > On 2/13/2025 4:57 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 5:41 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > *>> Schrodinger's Equation is 100% deterministic, so why is it necessary >>> to resort to probability at all?* >> >> > > > *Because one thing of many possible happens.* >> > > > *Why is that "one" thing special? I can answer that; because it's not > special, many things happen, everything that is not forbidden happens. You > have no answer to that question other than "because it is". * > > The only thing special about is that it's the one that happened. If > everything not forbidden happens then you're going to need to explain what > probabilty means. > > > * > I can write an equation for the toss of die that shows that the >> probability of each face is 1/6. That equation is deterministic. It >> determines probabilities. And probabilities tell you that some things >> happen and some don't. Not that every face of the die comes up on every >> throw.* > > > > *Schrodinger's equation produces a complex-valued wave that evolves in > time, the square of the absolute value of the amplitude of that wave > determines probabilities. You just take the Born Rule as a given because > experimenters tell you that it works. Many Worlds can tell you why it works > and why you need it. * > > So you say. But all attempts to derive it, assuming MWI, have failed. I > look forward to your paper. > > > *And unlike Schrodinger's Equation your dice equation directly determines > a probability* > > Not as directly as Schrodinger's equation determines QM proability > amplitudes. > > *; classical physics doesn't have or need a counterpart to the Born Rule > (although the square of the absolute value of an electromagnetic wave is > proportional to its energy). Classical physics can provide us with an > excellent approximation of how the orientation of the die will change in > time, so why do we need to use probability? The reason for that is > practical not fundamental, sometimes in classical physics tiny changes in > initial conditions lead to exponentially diverging trajectories over time, > and you're never going to know the initial conditions exactly, and even if > you did you don't have the computing capacity to use them.* > > *> And you have no answer to what probability means, until you resort to >> "uncertainty of self-location",* >> > > *Resort to? If I'm not allowed to give the correct answer then my answer > is going to be wrong. Many Worlds says everything always obeys > Schrodinger's equation including the observer, therefore there will always > be self-location uncertainty, it can't be avoided. * > > And how does that result in uncertainty, when you are located in every > branch. It's just the problem of what does probability mean when > everything happens. You're just pushing the problem around. > Brent, The problem isn’t that "everything happens"—it’s *how often* different things happen from the perspective of an observer. Probability in MWI doesn’t mean "some branches exist and others don’t" but rather that an observer finds themselves in certain branches *proportionally* to their measure. Saying "you’re just pushing the problem around" ignores that probability in any framework is about *expectations for future experience* based on structure. In a single-world view, you justify probabilities by appeal to hypothetical ensembles or repeated trials that never actually happen. In MWI, the structure of the wavefunction provides the ensemble *within* reality, and measure determines where most instances of an observer exist. Also, I’m not specifically advocating for MWI. I lean more towards *a computational theory of reality*, where measure and probability emerge from an underlying informational structure. But I do favor frameworks where *everything happens* rather than a single unique history set in stone forever. Saying 'some things happen and others don’t, just because' is not an explanation—it’s an arbitrary assertion, no better than saying 'God did it that way.' A real theory should provide a mechanism for why certain things are observed rather than simply declaring them to be the case. Quentin > Brent > > -- > 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/9d53a9f6-ae2b-40c0-82d9-2ffff413384b%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d53a9f6-ae2b-40c0-82d9-2ffff413384b%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/CAMW2kAqr5Dob86u8Nqu4gEY_cJtYVpwUQ_B%2BXRVtKha-T7zbkw%40mail.gmail.com.
