On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 4:52 PM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:

> Bruce,
>
> You claim there's "no mechanism" for assigning observer instances
> according to amplitude, but that’s just asserting ignorance as proof. The
> wavefunction already assigns amplitude-based structure to branches via
> unitary evolution and decoherence. The real question is whether measure
> naturally corresponds to observer frequencies—which is exactly what the
> Born rule states and what attempts at derivation (e.g., decision theory,
> self-locating uncertainty) try to formalize.
>
> Also, the idea that a "branch encompasses the whole world" is a rough
> classical approximation, not a fundamental quantum principle. If the
> wavefunction remains a continuous superposition, then what we call a branch
> is just a macroscopic partition of underlying structure, not a single
> discrete entity. Observer instances scale with measure because the
> amplitudes evolve deterministically, and decoherence prevents low-measure
> branches from contributing significantly to experience.
>
> Dismissing this as a "pipe dream" isn’t an argument—it's just an
> unwillingness to engage with the actual problem. If you want to claim MWI
> can't produce the Born rule, you need more than just repeating that you
> don't see how it happens. Again please publish and get the glory with your
> refutation.
>

I am still waiting for your mathematical derivation of the claims you make
above. "decoherence prevents low-measure branches from contributing
significantly to experience". I think a claim like this needs to be
justified. As it stands it just demonstrates that you do not have any
remote understanding of decoherence.

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/CAFxXSLSE%3DvcxS%3Dfr4K1HvCouLbt%2BLmashfBLWHt-0dDNY2Z5eA%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to