Bruce, If you are so certain that MWI is inconsistent with the Born rule, then the logical step would be to publish a formal refutation. If your argument is as definitive as you claim, it would resolve one of the longest-standing debates in quantum foundations, earning you the recognition you deserve. Yet, instead of engaging with the actual research on the subject, you dismiss any attempt at derivation as “unjustified nonsense” without addressing the core issue.
You keep demanding extraordinary evidence while assuming as fact that branch counting is correct and that amplitudes have no effect on observer distribution. But that’s precisely what is in question. You haven’t demonstrated why unitary evolution should treat all branches equally when quantum mechanics itself does not. Amplitudes matter in every quantum process—why would they suddenly become irrelevant when it comes to observer experiences? I’m not claiming that the issue is fully resolved, but pretending that it’s settled in your favor without actually proving it is just posturing. If your position is as airtight as you insist, why not take it to the academic community instead of repeating the same assertions here? Quentin Le ven. 21 févr. 2025, 09:18, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> a écrit : > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 6:29 PM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Bruce, >> >> The claim follows from basic probability reasoning applied to MWI. >> Decoherence ensures that branches evolve independently, preventing >> interference. This means that observer instances in different branches >> cannot interact. If you accept that observer experiences are determined by >> where they find themselves in the wavefunction, then the relative frequency >> of experiences should follow the distribution of amplitudes squared. >> > > That is an assumption that has never been shown to be true. > > The justification is straightforward: if there are exponentially more >> observers in high-amplitude branches than in low-amplitude ones, then a >> randomly selected observer will overwhelmingly find themselves in a >> high-measure branch. This is not an additional assumption—it follows >> directly from the structure of unitary evolution. >> > > No, it does not follow from unitary evolution. It follows from your > unjustified assumption that there are exponentially more observers in > high-amplitude branches than in low-amplitude ones. Talk about claims that > need to be justified. This stands out as an extraordinary claim. > > Your argument assumes that every sequence contributes equally to >> probability estimation, but that assumption is precisely what is in >> question. You are treating "branches" as discrete, countable objects, >> rather than as partitions of a continuously evolving wavefunction. >> > > That is just unjustified nonsense. You have not proved anything like this. > > The fact that decoherence prevents recombination does not mean each branch >> carries equal measure in terms of observer experience. >> >> If you believe otherwise, then you need to justify why amplitudes, which >> govern all other quantum phenomena, should suddenly become irrelevant in >> determining observer distribution. >> > > You are the one making extraordinary claims, and extraordinary claims > require extraordinary evidence -- which is not forthcoming. > > 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/CAFxXSLSPpT_qCbYLkNYdu_5xnY3_5j%3D9D6-dG026p5ViVhZcwQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSPpT_qCbYLkNYdu_5xnY3_5j%3D9D6-dG026p5ViVhZcwQ%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/CAMW2kAq%2B-_uAx7cF75W3FVWtW1ENEU9pjrb7yag5JOGz%3D4my6w%40mail.gmail.com.
