Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 3:52 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/4/2020 10:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 2:42 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On 9/4/2020 7:02 PM, Bru

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/4/2020 10:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 2:42 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 9/4/2020 7:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 11:29 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List mailto:every

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 2:42 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/4/2020 7:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 11:29 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> But the theory isn't

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/4/2020 7:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 11:29 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 9/4/2020 4:00 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 5:37 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List mailto:everyt

Re: QM gets personal

I can't see being "personally offended" by failure to mention a theory (unless maybe I invented it); but I would like to hear more exposition on Cramer's Transactional Interpretation. It does introduce some extra structure (possibility space); but then I think MWI fails in it's attempt to be p

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 11:29 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/4/2020 4:00 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 5:37 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On 9/4/2020 4:43 AM, Bru

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/4/2020 4:00 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 5:37 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 9/4/2020 4:43 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:32 PM smitra mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>> wrote: Even

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

That's because the natural measure on the integers is implicitly assumed. But if you simply have an infinite set of world's, some of them |up> and some of them |down> , there's no natural measure. Brent On 9/4/2020 12:49 PM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 2:03 PM 'Brent Meeker' via

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:53 AM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 6:11:03 PM UTC-5 Bruce wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:03 AM Lawrence Crowell >> wrote: >> >>> On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 6:21:49 AM UTC-5 Bruce wrote: >>> O

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 6:11:03 PM UTC-5 Bruce wrote: > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:03 AM Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > >> On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 6:21:49 AM UTC-5 Bruce wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:49 PM Lawrence Crowell < >>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fr

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:03 AM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 6:21:49 AM UTC-5 Bruce wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:49 PM Lawrence Crowell >> wrote: >> >>> On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 1:54:34 AM UTC-5 Bruce wrote: >>> O

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 6:21:49 AM UTC-5 Bruce wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:49 PM Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > >> On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 1:54:34 AM UTC-5 Bruce wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 4:40 PM Quentin Anciaux >>> wrote: >>> Le ven. 4 sept. 2020 à 00:01, 'B

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 5:37 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/4/2020 4:43 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:32 PM smitra wrote: > >> Even if the MWI is false and the wavefunction collapses to produce only >> one of the poss

Re: QM gets personal

If you want reality you must consider the wave function as nonlocal, or perform measurements correspond to nonlocality. If you want to show reality is lost then you have to localize measurements, such as the Wigner friend argument and localized observers of observers. QM has no favor one way or

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 2:03 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: *> If there are an infinite number then frequency is ill defined* > That is incorrect. There are an infinity Ii of prime numbers but the Prime N umber Theorem allows you to determine the l

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/4/2020 4:43 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:32 PM smitra > wrote: Even if the MWI is false and the wavefunction collapses to produce only one of the possible outcomes with a probability given by the Born rule, you'll still get

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

If there are an infinite number then frequency is ill defined and you have to introduce some measure...which is essentially the same as just postulating a probability. This is something like Carroll's solution which is to give "weights" to branches. Brent On 9/3/2020 11:39 PM, Quentin Anciau

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:43 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> Applying the Born rule to the repeated measurement scenario tells you > that the probability of the extreme branches is low; whereas, the idea that > all possible outcomes occur on every trial trivially implies that the > probability of the e

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 2:54 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: > *in Everett, the low probability worlds always occur with probability > one. * I don't know what you mean by "low probability world", as Quentin says you can't count Everettian worlds, it would be like counting the number of points on a line

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 7:59 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > *It has nothing to do with whether the world is deterministic or not: all > that is involved is that there is some objective chance of this particular > result* If things are deterministic then there's no such thing as objective chance, and

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:32 PM smitra wrote: > Even if the MWI is false and the wavefunction collapses to produce only > one of the possible outcomes with a probability given by the Born rule, > you'll still get all possibilities realized in a generic infinite > universe, whether it's spatially i

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

Even if the MWI is false and the wavefunction collapses to produce only one of the possible outcomes with a probability given by the Born rule, you'll still get all possibilities realized in a generic infinite universe, whether it's spatially infinite or a universe that exists for an infinite l

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:49 PM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 1:54:34 AM UTC-5 Bruce wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 4:40 PM Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >>> Le ven. 4 sept. 2020 à 00:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>> every

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 1:54:34 AM UTC-5 Bruce wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 4:40 PM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> Le ven. 4 sept. 2020 à 00:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everyth...@googlegroups.com> a écrit : >> >>> Sure. But Albert's argument is that in a single, probabil