Le lun. 17 févr. 2025, 23:36, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> a écrit :
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 9:26 AM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Le lun. 17 févr. 2025, 23:13, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> a >> écrit : >> >>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 9:01 AM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Sure, but saying “some things happen and others don’t” is just labeling >>>> an outcome, not explaining why probability follows the Born rule. If you >>>> take that as fundamental, fine, but that’s just postulating rather than >>>> deriving it. >>>> >>>> MWI doesn’t deny probability; it just reframes the question. The >>>> challenge isn’t that “everything happens,” it’s understanding why observers >>>> experience frequencies matching the Born rule. That’s what self-locating >>>> uncertainty and measure attempts to address. >>>> >>> >>> Self-locating uncertainty is just the question "Why am I on this branch >>> and not the other". I don't see that that question is any different from >>> the characterization of probability as "some things happen and others >>> don't". Self-locating uncertainty is just "Some branches matter to me and >>> others don't". No different. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >> >> Self-locating uncertainty isn't about some branches mattering more, it’s >> about explaining why an observer, pre-measurement, should expect to >> experience one outcome over another in the correct proportions >> > > No different. > > The difference is that self-locating uncertainty applies before the >> measurement, not just as a retrospective description of what happened. In >> standard probability, uncertainty reflects an observer's ignorance of an >> outcome before it is known. In MWI, all outcomes exist, but the observer >> still doesn’t know which branch they will find themselves in, hence, >> self-locating uncertainty. >> > > Rubbish. If you say that the probability of horse X winning the race is p, > then the race hasn't yet been run. So you are just talking nonsense. > > Bruce > Bruce, If you assign probability to horse X winning, you are describing uncertainty before the race is run, which is exactly the point. In standard probability, that uncertainty is about a single outcome being realized. In MWI, it’s about which branch an observer will find themselves in. The key question isn’t whether probability exists before measurement, it’s why the observer should expect the Born rule to govern the distribution of experiences. If you dismiss self-locating uncertainty, then what mechanism in a purely unitary framework explains why we don’t see uniform distributions or some other weighting instead of Born’s rule? In a single-world framework, the supposed ensemble of possible outcomes is purely imaginary, it never happens, it never will, and it has no more reality than a work of fiction. Treating these unrealized possibilities as if they have explanatory power is just storytelling, not a real mechanism. Quentin -- > 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/CAFxXSLRZaiHTzeOD%3D7TBEHuqgcdm%2B2sw1qT4%3DxiTnV6mnL-MrQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRZaiHTzeOD%3D7TBEHuqgcdm%2B2sw1qT4%3DxiTnV6mnL-MrQ%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/CAMW2kArW1XqiK0BHNJqKD7XzSRT-6Bh-gruMVYu6P4uN_kpCKg%40mail.gmail.com.
