On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 6:17 PM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You’re treating "branches" as isolated, discrete units, but if the > wavefunction remains a continuous superposition, then what we call "a > branch" is just an approximation—a macroscopic coarse-graining of many > micro-branches. Decoherence prevents interference between them, but it does > not imply a strict one-to-one mapping between observer instances and > branches. > Unitary decoherence does not work as you claim. If more observer instances exist in a high-amplitude region of the > wavefunction, then an observer randomly drawn from the total set of > observers is overwhelmingly likely to experience a sequence in proportion > to its measure, not because the sequence itself is somehow weighted, but > because there are simply more instances of the observer experiencing it. > There is no mechanism in unitary quantum mechanics that can give the structure that you envisage. This is not just an abstract claim—it follows directly from how measure > works in probability. If you duplicate a computational process a million > times and run it on different hardware, the subjective experience of that > process does not exist in just one instance. Similarly, in MWI, if > decoherence results in more observer instances in a high-measure region, > then most self-locating observers will find themselves in those regions. > That does not work in unitary quantum mechanics. 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/CAFxXSLT5C0oRk5x5t13u%2B4bseE2bjOJT9fvjt6k0w-N1XXyJ6A%40mail.gmail.com.
