Re: Probability in Everettian QM

archal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > > >> I don't know what the hell to make of a "objective probability of a > >> possible subjectivity”. > > > I give you an example. A person is multiplied by 100 and put in 100 > > different, but identic

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 7 Sep 2020, at 16:33, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 9:29 AM Bruno Marchal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > > >> In that thought experiment there is no objective probability because John > >> Clark is always in a prime

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 17:14, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On 9/8/2020 10:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 14:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> >>> Be a

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

Le mer. 9 sept. 2020 à 09:46, Bruce Kellett a écrit : > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 5:29 PM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> Le mer. 9 sept. 2020 à 09:14, Bruce Kellett a >> écrit : >> >>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 5:29 PM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Le mer. 9 sept. 2020 à 09:14, Bruce Kellett a > écrit : > >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> On 9/8/2020 10:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> >>> On

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 16:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/8/2020 10:51 PM, Stathis > > Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 14:56, > > Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

Le mer. 9 sept. 2020 à 09:14, Bruce Kellett a écrit : > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On 9/8/2020 10:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 14:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> >>> Be a

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/8/2020 10:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 14:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> >> Be a dualist if you want to. But the closest continuer theory is a >>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/8/2020 10:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 14:56, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 2:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou mailto:stath...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 12:35, Bruce Kellett

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 3:52 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 14:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> >> Be a dualist if you want to. But the closest continuer theory is a >> convention designed to resolve questions of personal identity in cases of >> personal duplication, absent a

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 14:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 2:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 12:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 12:32 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote: >>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 11:53, Bruce Kellett

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 2:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 12:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 12:32 PM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 11:53, Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 11:39 AM 'Brent Meeker'

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 12:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 12:32 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 11:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 11:39 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 12:32 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 11:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 11:39 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> On 9/8/2020 6:14 PM, smitra wrote: >>> > On 09-09-2020

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 11:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 11:39 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On 9/8/2020 6:14 PM, smitra wrote: >> > On 09-09-2020 02:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> >> I don't find that answer convincing,

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/8/2020 6:53 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 11:39 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 9/8/2020 6:14 PM, smitra wrote: > On 09-09-2020 02:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> I don't find that answer convincing,

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 11:39 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/8/2020 6:14 PM, smitra wrote: > > On 09-09-2020 02:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > >> I don't find that answer convincing, because of the implicit dualist > >> assumption. A perfectly

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

wrote: On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: _> The probability of interest is that one particular John Clark will see a prime number, not that some John Clark will see a prime number. A gambler who buys a lottery ticket is interested in the probability that one particu

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

d, Sep 9, 2020 at 8:14 AM Stathis Papaioannou > >> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 22:10, John Clark > >> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou > >> wrote: > >> > >> _> The

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: _> The probability of interest is that one particular John Clark will see a prime number, not that some John Clark will see a prime number. A gambler who buys a lottery ticket is interested in the probability that one particular gambler will buy the winning tic

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

;>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 22:10, John Clark wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> *> The probability of interest is that one particular John Clark wil

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

gt; On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> *> The probability of interest is that one particular John Clark will >>>>> see a prime number, not that some John Clark will see a prime number. A >>>&g

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 09:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 8:14 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 22:10, John Clark wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote: >>>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 8:14 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 22:10, John Clark wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >> *> The probability of interest is that one particular John Clark will see >&

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 22:10, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > *> The probability of interest is that one particular John Clark will see >> a prime number, not that some John Clark will see a prime number. A gambler >>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: *> The probability of interest is that one particular John Clark will see a > prime number, not that some John Clark will see a prime number. A gambler > who buys a lottery ticket is interested in the probability that one >

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

;>>> On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 04:41, John Clark wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 9:34 AM Bruno Marchal >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >> I don't know what the hell to make of a "objective probability of

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

t; On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 9:34 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>> >> I don't know what the hell to make of a "objective probability of a >>>>>> possible subjectivity”. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *> I give you

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

gt; I don't know what the hell to make of a "objective probability of a >>>>> possible subjectivity”. >>>> >>>> >>>> *> I give you an example. A person is multiplied by 100 and put in 100 >>>> different, but identical from inside rooms.

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 8:49 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 04:41, John Clark wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 9:34 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> I don't know what the hell to make of a "objective probability of a >>>>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 04:41, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 9:34 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> I don't know what the hell to make of a "objective probability of a >>> possible subjectivity”. >> >> >> *> I give you an exa

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 9:29 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> In that thought experiment there is no objective probability because >> John Clark is always in a prime numbered room or John Clark is not. So >> there is only subjective probability. There is a 100% chance John Clark >

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 7 Sep 2020, at 13:06, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 6:50 PM Bruce Kellett <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > >> Bruce takes the Born probability as the probability that some sequence > >> exists (i.e. 1) instead of the

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 7 Sep 2020, at 00:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 3:34 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > > It's because Bruce takes the Born probability as the probability that some > se

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 6 Sep 2020, at 20:40, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 9:34 AM Bruno Marchal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > > >> I don't know what the hell to make of a "objective probability of a > >> possible subjectivity”. > > >

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 6 Sep 2020, at 19:58, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > This is a reasonable account of teleporation. I agree too, … except for minor technical details (already discussed with Bruce, and I guess Bruce will not be convinced by Vaidman, nor by my slight corrections, which is mainly that a

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 6 Sep 2020, at 19:53, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > Do you have a paper explaining this? No. It is a recent finding. But it is almost trivial, the difficulties are in the "descriptive set theory". I have thought wrongly that allowing the full measure on the

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 6:50 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: >> Bruce takes the Born probability as the probability that some sequence >> exists (i.e. 1) instead of the probability it is the observed sequence, ( >> |a|^2 ). >> > > *> That is the source of the dis

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 08:50, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 3:34 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 3:34 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > It's because Bruce takes the Born probability as the probability that some > sequence exists (i.e. 1) instead of the probability it is the observed >

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 9:34 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> I don't know what the hell to make of a "objective probability of a >> possible subjectivity”. > > > *> I give you an example. A person is multiplied by 100 and put in 100 > different, but identical fr

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

This is a reasonable account of teleporation. LC On Sunday, September 6, 2020 at 12:03:30 PM UTC-5 sce...@libero.it wrote: > BTW I've found that quote by Vaidman. > 'In the framework of the MWI, *the teleportation procedure does not move > the quantum state: the state was, in some sense, in

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

Do you have a paper explaining this? Brent On 9/6/2020 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think you are helping yourself to probabilities by implicitly assuming a measure. It is not obvious, but there is a measure for the first person views, plural ([]p & <>t) and singular ([]p & p, []p &

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

/> You're saying that since Everett says some sequence occurs he is predicting*it* with probability 1./ Everett Is saying a world exists where 30 seconds from now all the air molecules in the room you're in right now gather in one small corner due to random motion and you suf

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

BTW I've found that quote by Vaidman. 'In the framework of the MWI, the teleportation procedure does not move the quantum state: the state was, in some sense, in the remote location from the beginning. The correlated pair, which is the necessary item for teleportation, incorporates all

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

art of what I was trying to point out earlier is that where MWI has some issues with the definition of probability and then by corollary issues with the Born rules is a tiny measure over possible sets of outcomes. I am not a primary exponent of MWI, just as I don't uphold any interpretation of

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

N >> iterations, there are 2^N Kirks on the surface of the planet. If each >> carries a notebook in which he has recorded the sequence of colours of his >> outfits, all possible binary sequences of B and G will be recorded in some >> book or the other. A simple application of

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 6 Sep 2020, at 01:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > So why do you defend Carroll and Everett? Even self-locating uncertainty is > an essentially probabilistic idea. Glad to hear that :) Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List"

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

t 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 probability would just be a measure of our degree of ignorance of >>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

tic world that >>> implements Born's rule, the number of scientist who find something contrary >>> to Born's rule goes to zero as the number of repetitions increases. But in >>> the multiverse there are always contrary worlds and, while their fraction >>> decr

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

then that number says nothing intrinsically true about the >>> Yankees, it just says something about the state of mind of the speaker who >>> made the utterance. >> >> The analogy does not work, in Everett, like in the WM-self-duplication, we >> are in d

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

googlegroups.com >>> <mailto: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 < >>>> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.co

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

rooms are different and the brain/computer has sense organs then > the brain/computer will detect those differences and so the brain/computers > will no longer be identical. OK > > > there is an objective probability on the possible subjective future > > self-locatin

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

slike all those worlds for one reason or another and want to get rid of them. I think Schrodinger's Equation is hard enough to solve as it is and needlessly making it even more complicated is not progress. *> You're saying that since Everett says some sequence occurs he is > predicting

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 6:55 PM 'scerir' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Bruce: "The idea of a large ensemble of pre-existing worlds that just get > distinguished by results has never been taken seriously by anyone outside > of this list. It has never been worked

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

Bruce: "The idea of a large ensemble of pre-existing worlds that just get distinguished by results has never been taken seriously by anyone outside of this list. It has never been worked through in detail, and it is doubtful if it even makes sense. It certainly has nothing to do with the

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Saturday, September 5, 2020 at 2:21:26 PM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 12:34 PM Philip Thrift wrote: > > >>If Everett is right then "John K Clark" can see both, but "I" can not. >>> John K Clark >>> >> >> *> This is how physics has become worse than flat-earth

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

ce of the planet. If each > carries a notebook in which he has recorded the sequence of colours of his > outfits, all possible binary sequences of B and G will be recorded in some > book or the other. A simple application of the binomial distribution shows > that the notebook records peak

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

ately equal numbers of blue and green outfits. This is experimental verification of the probability of p(blue) = 0.5 = p(green). Now let us try to vary the probabilities, say to p(blue) = 0.9 and p(green) = 0.1. How do we do this? OK, we transport Kirk and, with probability p = 0.9, we colour o

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

f his outfits, all possible binary sequences of B and G will be recorded in some book or the other. A simple application of the binomial distribution shows that the notebook records peak around sequences showing approximately equal numbers of blue and green outfits. This is experimental verification of the p

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

certainly occur for any N. In other words, the probability of the occurrence of such a sequence is one. Whereas the Born rule, as we both now seem to agree, predicts that the probability for the occurrence of such a sequence is 1/2^N. It is the fact that Everett and the Born rul

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 4:11 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/4/2020 11:27 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > No, listen carefully. Everett predicts that such a sequence will certainly > occur for any N. In other word

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

;> 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. >> > > Don't we need to postulate a measure to calculate the (frequentis

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/5/2020 3:31 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 8:03:55 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote: 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

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Saturday, September 5, 2020 at 8:11:57 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > There are some people who can't abide probabilistic theories and will > invent fantastic worlds in order to have a deterministic ensemble which > then must be reduced by ignorance to agree with observation. They then > feel

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 8:03:55 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > 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 solut

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 12:34 PM Philip Thrift wrote: >>If Everett is right then "John K Clark" can see both, but "I" can not. >> John K Clark >> > > *> This is how physics has become worse than flat-earth theory.* > How so? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

istic 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 probability would just be a measure of our degree of ignorance of hidden causes. What would be an hid

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

ases, their number increases with repetitions. That is really the essential difference between Everettian notions of probability and standard probabilistic theory/practice. In the Everettian repeated experiment case, disconfirming cases occur with probability one, so it is strictly i

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

different histories at the same time, as long as we cannot distinguish them. If two identical brain/computer are run in two different rooms, there is an objective probability on the possible subjective future self-locating outcome. Is there? Can it be p=0.501 and q=0.499 ? I think you are

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

hing List mailto: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 mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote: But the theory isn't about the prob

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> > > If Everett is right then "John K Clark" can see both, but "I" can not. > > John K Clark > This is how physics has become worse than flat-earth theory. @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 6:05 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> If things are deterministic then there's no such thing as objective >> chance, and probability would just be a measure of our degree of >> ignorance of hidden causes. > > > *> What would be an hidden cause in th

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

dentical brain/computer are run in two different rooms,* > If the two rooms are different and the brain/computer has sense organs then the brain/computer will detect those differences and so the brain/computers will no longer be identical. > there is an objective probability on the possible sub

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

Everything List < >>> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>everything-list@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote: >>> >>> But the theory isn't about the probability of a specific sequence, it's >>>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

t;mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>> 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 >>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

is no meaningfull way of "counting"... The frequency is all > there is. > > > That does not detract from the fact that in Everett, the low probability > worlds always occur with probability one. In other words, the theory is > intrinsically self-contradictory -- incoherent.

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

<mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>> 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 >> u

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 4 Sep 2020, at 15:36, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:43 AM Bruce Kellett <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > Applying the Born rule to the repeated measurement scenario tells you that > > the probability of the extreme branches i

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

jective chance of this particular > > result > > If things are deterministic then there's no such thing as objective chance, > and probability would just be a measure of our degree of ignorance of hidden > causes. What would be an hidden cause in the case of the self-duplication

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 4 Sep 2020, at 13:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:32 PM smitra <mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>> 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 r

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 4 Sep 2020, at 13:32, 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,

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

e but there is no increase or > decrease, there is no meaningfull way of "counting"... The frequency is all > there is. > > > That does not detract from the fact that in Everett, the low probability > worlds always occur with probability one. After the fac

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

is really the essential difference between Everettian notions of > probability and standard probabilistic theory/practice. In the Everettian > repeated experiment case, disconfirming cases occur with probability one, so > it is strictly incoherent to claim (as Everettians, such as Se

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 04-09-2020 13:43, 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 all possibilities realized in a generic

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

tt, like in the WM-self-duplication, we are in different histories at the same time, as long as we cannot distinguish them. If two identical brain/computer are run in two different rooms, there is an objective probability on the possible subjective future self-locating outcome. Here the 3p

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 < >> everything-list@googlegroups.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> But the theory isn't about the probability of a specific se

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

List mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote: But the theory isn't about the probability of a specific sequence, it's about the probability of |up> vs |down> in the sequence without regard for order. So there will, if the theory is correct, b

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

>> >> But the theory isn't about the probability of a specific sequence, it's >> about the probability of |up> vs |down> in the sequence without regard for >> order. So there will, if the theory is correct, be many more sequences >> with a frequency of |up> n

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

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

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,

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

l>> 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 spa

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

imes less than any given number. Prime number calculator <https://www.dcode.fr/prime-number-pi-count> And besides, Everettianworlds don't have real number probabilities, they have complex number amplitudes, eo get a probability you need to take the square of the Absolute Value of the a

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

>>>>>>>> repetitions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's an interpretation... because I think there is no increasing >>>>>>> or decreasing of numbers of worlds there are an infinity of them >>>>>>> always, s

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

gt;>>>> while their fraction decreases, their number increases with repetitions. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That's an interpretation... because I think there is no increasing or >>>>>> decreasing of numbers of worlds there

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

because I think there is no increasing or >>>>> decreasing of numbers of worlds there are an infinity of them always, >>>>> similar / identical "world" differentiate but there is no increase or >>>>> decrease, there is no meaningfull way of

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

ot;world" differentiate but there is no increase or >>>> decrease, there is no meaningfull way of "counting"... The frequency is >>>> all >>>> there is. >>>> >>> >>> >>> That does not detract from the

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

s 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 long time. >> >>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

to determine the likely frequency of primes less than any given number. Prime number calculator <https://www.dcode.fr/prime-number-pi-count> And besides, Everettian worlds don't have real number probabilities, they have complex number amplitudes, eo get a probability you need to take the squa

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 <mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>> 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

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >