Bruce, You argue that assuming the Born rule can emerge from unitary evolution is unjustified. But rejecting the possibility outright without proof is equally an assumption—one that dismisses ongoing efforts to derive it.
You claim that branch counting does not factor into your argument, yet your critique hinges on the idea that every binary sequence should appear with equal frequency. That assumption implicitly treats all branches as equiprobable, which is precisely what is in question. If measure determines observer distribution, then not all sequences contribute equally—just as in classical probability, where frequency matters more than raw enumeration. Dismissing self-locating uncertainty as requiring a specific number of branches to match Born probabilities misrepresents the argument. The core idea is that high-measure branches contain exponentially more observer instances, making them overwhelmingly likely to be experienced. This is not an arbitrary assumption—it is a direct consequence of how amplitudes influence the evolution of the wavefunction. You state that no alternative approach can work, yet multiple avenues are actively being explored. Your argument does not refute MWI—it challenges one specific approach (branch counting) while ignoring others. If you claim MWI is falsified, you need to address the broader question: why should amplitudes govern quantum behavior in every other context except observer frequencies? If your argument were definitive, it would be publishable. But simply stating "it hasn’t been done" is not a proof that it cannot be done. Quentin Le dim. 23 févr. 2025, 00:31, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> a écrit : > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTCMwL98Gah5VtM2pLcCdNH_cWw1h72seJLZjqeRnPfMA%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/CAMW2kAqD9qOkjqYPm3no0Vard-7%2BmE29602kTEOxOK2c-rS1LQ%40mail.gmail.com.
