Bruce, I never claimed that what I’m exploring is standard quantum mechanics—it’s an attempt to understand where probability and measure come from within unitary evolution. The Born rule is an empirical fact, and any interpretation must account for it. If standard QM simply assumes it, that’s fine for practical purposes, but it leaves an open foundational question.
The point is not to redefine QM but to explore whether the structure of the wavefunction itself can justify the probabilities we observe. If you believe that amplitudes play no role beyond being passive parameters, that’s an assumption, not a derivation. If the answer is simply "we postulate the Born rule," then fair enough—but that’s no different from assuming a single world with one outcome per measurement. The difference is that I prefer interpretations that try to explain rather than just assert. Quentin Le mar. 25 févr. 2025, 05:56, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> a écrit : > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 3:08 PM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> Bruce, >> >> If we consider that there is always an infinite superposition of >> branches, then each partition also contains an infinite number of branches, >> but with different relative measures. The key point is that branches are >> not discrete objects—they are coarse-grained regions of the wavefunction >> shaped by decoherence. >> >> Unitary evolution does not create additional observers explicitly, but if >> measure reflects the density of observer instances within the wavefunction, >> then the number of observers experiencing a particular sequence is not >> uniform across all branches. This avoids naive branch counting and aligns >> with how probabilities emerge from continuous distributions rather than >> discrete events. >> >> The challenge is formalizing this within unitary QM, possibly through >> information-theoretic approaches, measure theory, or even constraints from >> computational complexity. If amplitudes guide the structure of the >> wavefunction, why wouldn’t they also influence the distribution of observer >> instances? >> > > It is good to see that you finally acknowledge that your theory is not > 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/CAFxXSLQFwbLsMpfBiohtnoR8dEY7Mfn%3DjaTC0_8nqOnwdgPBMQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQFwbLsMpfBiohtnoR8dEY7Mfn%3DjaTC0_8nqOnwdgPBMQ%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/CAMW2kArqGgf%3DKv8oT4LPEffFqNZNMZN4v7HxBDjB0%3D3n%2Bt1EhA%40mail.gmail.com.
