On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 11:01 AM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You didn’t prove that MWI is inconsistent with the Born rule, you assumed > it by asserting that all 2^N sequences contribute equally, which is not how > MWI works. The amplitude coefficients do matter, they determine the measure > of each sequence, which affects the relative frequency of observed outcomes. > > Your argument rests on the assumption that sequences exist independently > of their amplitudes, but you haven’t justified why the observer should > expect a uniform distribution rather than one weighted by the > wavefunction’s structure. This is precisely the question that needs to be > answered, not assumed away. > The basic premise of MWI is that every possible outcome of an experiment actually occurs, albeit on a separate branch with a separate copy of the experimenter. This means that N trials on the binary state, give 2^N binary sequences, covering all possible binary sequences of length N. This same set of binary sequences is obtained for any values of the original amplitudes. If you disagree with this simple mathematics, then I challenge you to point out where it is wrong. And that does not mean just assuming that it has something to do with the emplitues. The mathematics of the Schrodinger equation says that they play no role in the formation of these 2^N sequences. 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/CAFxXSLQ6fVGCZRQsFRcVyjbmktK6ozOnKpCcN1%3Did-U2YmZqxA%40mail.gmail.com.
