Bruce, Your argument assumes that because the Born rule is not yet fully derived from unitary evolution, MWI must be incorrect. But that’s not a proof—it’s just an assertion of incompleteness.
You claim to have refuted MWI, but what you have shown is that naive branch counting does not recover the Born rule. That’s not news—Everettians don’t rely on branch counting alone. The real question is whether measure, derived from amplitudes, determines observer frequencies. You keep insisting that amplitudes play no role beyond the Born rule, but this is circular—you are assuming the Born rule as a fundamental postulate rather than allowing for the possibility that it emerges from the structure of unitary evolution. If you claim that no such derivation is possible, you need more than a rejection of branch counting—you need to demonstrate why no alternative approach could work. If you believe MWI is falsified, publish your proof. Otherwise, saying "it hasn’t been done yet" is not the same as showing it can’t be done. Quentin Le sam. 22 févr. 2025, 23:47, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> a écrit : > On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 9:01 AM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Le sam. 22 févr. 2025, 21:01, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> a >> écrit : >> >>> On 2/21/2025 11:19 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> >>> You're just restating that amplitudes only matter for probabilities >>> because of the Born rule, which is exactly the point in question. You're >>> assuming what you need to prove. >>> >>> Proof is for printers, mathematicians, and whiskey. Science goes by >>> evidence. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> We confirmed the Born rule empirically, yes. But the question is why it >> holds in a purely unitary framework. If science goes by evidence, then >> interpretations must account for that evidence. Just stating that squared >> amplitudes determine frequencies doesn’t explain why they should without >> assuming it outright. >> > > That argument might have more weight if you could actually give a coherent > account of the origin of probability and the Born rule in terms of unitary > evolution. > > 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/CAFxXSLTTR_ceXwVD-7NQjf6qvH18DJCNSHQojLkMZt_zB6ix7Q%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTTR_ceXwVD-7NQjf6qvH18DJCNSHQojLkMZt_zB6ix7Q%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/CAMW2kArjxcOaVnjgbcGz848r-Fm_YXRD7qkATpJLZLfbmirqmA%40mail.gmail.com.
