On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 10:09 AM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > On the other hand, it is just an assumption that it can be made to work -- an assumption without any evidential support. 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. > Clearly you have not made any effort to understand what I have been saying. Branch counting does not come into the argument. The only place where branch counting might be relevant is if you rely on self-locating uncertainty. Then you require the number of branches to reflect the Born probabilities. That does not work. 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. > You clearly don't even understand what a circular argument is. 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. > Publication is not proof. 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/CAFxXSLTCMwL98Gah5VtM2pLcCdNH_cWw1h72seJLZjqeRnPfMA%40mail.gmail.com.
