On 2/14/2025 4:55 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 12:13 AM Brent Meeker <[email protected]>
wrote:
*>> Schrodinger's equation producesa 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 admit there is some controversy concerning the validity of the
derivations of the Born Rule that Many Worlds advocates have come up
with, but they are the only ones that have even tried. Copenhagen,
Objective Collapse, the Bayesian Interpretation and of course Shut Up
And Calculate haven't even tried to derive it from their respective
interpretations, they just accept the Born Rule as a starting
assumption. *
You said you read the papers by Brandes, Weinberg, and Pearle to which I
posted links. That's exactly what they were about. Of course if you
can /only/ be satisfied by an ignorance interpretation of probability,
then any one-world interpretation is going to conflict with your theology.
*Deutsch and Wallace have proven that if the Many Worlds idea is
correct then a rational agent in a branching universe would bet
according to the probabilities theBorn Rule produces; the only
assumptions they needed is that similar quantum states should have
similar probabilities, and probability assignments should be stable
over time. But some complain that they have not defined "rationality"
with enough mathematical rigor. *
*And in 2014 Sean Carroll and Charles Sebens used Many Worlds to find
another derivation of the Born Rule based on self‐locating
uncertainty. However some complain that if you know the full wave
function then you should not have any uncertainty at all; I believe
that complaint is invalid resulting from confusion over the personal
pronoun "you". Another complaint is that they are assuming something
called the "Epistemic Separability Principle", the idea that an
observer’s credences about local measurements shouldn’t be affected by
distant changes in the environment; I can't comment further about that
because I don't know what the hell it means.*
*>> 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.*
Fallacious reasoning. There won't be any self-location uncertainty if
only one world happens...as a properly interpreted Schroedinger plus
Born rule says.
/< And how does that result in uncertainty, when you are located
in every branch. /
*Brent Meeker is in every branch but Mr.You is in only one branch, and
until Mr.You opens the box and looks at the cat Mr.You lacks
sufficient information to know which branch Mr.You is in. If personal
pronouns had never been invented the Many Worlds idea would have been
universally accepted by the physics community 50 years ago. *
A semantic solution to a physics problem?
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/7851da3c-c45c-406b-9757-ba137a66a608%40gmail.com.
