Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 5 Sep 2020, at 21:21, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/5/2020 3:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 4 Sep 2020, at 14:24, John Clark < >>> johnkcl...@gmail.com >>> > wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 5 Sep 2020, at 21:16, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/5/2020 2:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 4 Sep 2020, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett < >>> bhkellet...@gmail.com >>> > wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 4

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 5 Sep 2020, at 21:08, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/5/2020 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 3 Sep 2020, at 16:17, John Clark < >>> johnkcl...@gmail.com >>> > wrote: >>> >>> I don't understand

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 5 Sep 2020, at 20:11, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/4/2020 11:27 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 3:52 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everything-list@googlegroups.com >>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 5 Sep 2020, at 14:26, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 5:28 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > Hugh Everett would say pretty much the same thing because he also believes > > we live in a deterministic world. Originally he may have only a vague idea > >

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 7:59 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> The important point that I am taking from Everett is that > the Schrodinger equation is the whole of quantum physics (Carroll's idea). > If the wave function of the SE does not collapse (and there is no collapse > in the Schrodinger equation)

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 th

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 Schrodi

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 the

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 3:37 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/5/2020 6:07 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 10:25 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On 9/5/2020 4:59 PM, Bru

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/5/2020 6:07 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 10:25 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 9/5/2020 4:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: So why do you defend Carroll and Everett? Even self-locating uncertainty is an

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 10:25 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/5/2020 4:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > So why do you defend Carroll and Everett? Even self-locating uncertainty > is an essentially probabilistic idea. > > > I don't defend them

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/5/2020 4:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 4:11 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 9/4/2020 11:27 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: No, listen carefully. Everett predicts that such a sequence will certainly occu

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 words, the probability of the occurre

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sunday, September 6, 2020 at 12:39:24 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > > > 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

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. This is s

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 th

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 solution which > is to

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/5/2020 3:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 4 Sep 2020, at 14:24, John Clark > wrote: 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 i

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 subscribed

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/5/2020 2:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 4 Sep 2020, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 8:01 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: Sure. But Albert's argument is that in a single,

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/5/2020 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 3 Sep 2020, at 16:17, John Clark > wrote: I don't understand Albert's position or the distinction he is trying to make. He says that If the world is deterministic and given his knowledge of the macro state of the wor

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/4/2020 11:27 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 3:52 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > 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 mailto:every

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 fr

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 the case of the self-duplication?

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 5:28 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > Hugh Everett would say pretty much the same thing because he also > believes we live in a deterministic world. Originally he may have only a > vague idea of which branch of the multiverse is being observed and so he > thinks there's a 50% chan

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 5 Sep 2020, at 08:27, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 3:52 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto: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 < >>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 5 Sep 2020, at 04:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 11:29 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto: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 < >>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 5 Sep 2020, at 01:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:03 AM Lawrence Crowell > mailto: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, Se

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 5 Sep 2020, at 01:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 5:37 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto: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: >>

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 > 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

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 4 Sep 2020, at 14:24, John Clark wrote: > > 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 >

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 > 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 al

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, whether > it's spatiall

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 4 Sep 2020, at 08:54, Bruce Kellett 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 > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > a écrit : > Sure. But Albert's argument is t

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 4 Sep 2020, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 8:01 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > Sure. But Albert's argument is that in a single, probabilistic world that > implements Born's rule, the number of scien

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 infini

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 3 Sep 2020, at 16:17, John Clark wrote: > > I don't understand Albert's position or the distinction he is trying to make. > He says that If the world is deterministic and given his knowledge of the > macro state of the world right now he thinks there is a 75% chance the > Yankees will wi

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: 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: 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

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

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 < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> a écrit : > >> Sure. But Albert's argument is that in a single, probabilistic world >> that implements Born's rule, the number of scienti

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

Le ven. 4 sept. 2020 à 00:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> a écrit : > Sure. But Albert's argument is that in a single, probabilistic world that > implements Born's rule, the number of scientist who find something contrary > to Born's rule goes to zero as

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 12:18 AM John Clark wrote: > I don't understand Albert's position or the distinction he is trying to > make. He says that If the world is deterministic and given his knowledge of > the macro state of the world right now he thinks there is a 75% chance the > Yankees will win

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 8:01 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Sure. But Albert's argument is that in a single, probabilistic world that > implements Born's rule, the number of scientist who find something contrary > to Born's rule goes to zero as t

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

Sure. But Albert's argument is that in a single, probabilistic 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 fra

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/3/2020 7:17 AM, John Clark wrote: I don't understand Albert's position or the distinction he is trying to make. He says that If the world is deterministic and given his knowledge of the macro state of the world right now he thinks there is a 75% chance the Yankees will win the World Seri

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/3/2020 4:16 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 4:02 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: An interesting discussion of Everettian QM in two parts. The first part https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyvgBe9VV70

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 2:48 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > * > repeated experiments will not produce statistics that converge to the > Born rule, i.e. there will necessarily (not just probabilistically) be > experimenters in worlds supporting

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

Hi, as there will be persons in self duplicate experiment who'll see WWW...WW. But most should converge on 50%. Quentin Le jeu. 3 sept. 2020 à 20:48, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> a écrit : > Albert makes an interesting argument against Everettian QM, i.

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

Albert makes an interesting argument against Everettian QM, i.e. that repeated experiments will not produce statistics that converge to the Born rule, i.e. there will necessarily (not just probabilistically) be experimenters in worlds supporting every possible probability value. Brent On 9/3/

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

This sort of way of approaching physics is no different really from theological debates about some esoteric Christian doctrine. The last of Carroll's The Biggest Ideas in the Universe series is actually interesting at the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqphkIO7yt4 He has nowhere to g

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

I don't understand Albert's position or the distinction he is trying to make. He says that If the world is deterministic and given his knowledge of the macro state of the world right now he thinks there is a 75% chance the Yankees will win the World Series this year. If things are deterministic the

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 4:02 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > An interesting discussion of Everettian QM in two parts. The first part > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyvgBe9VV70 > > is just David Albert and Sean Carroll. It's quite reminiscent

Probability in Everettian QM

An interesting discussion of Everettian QM in two parts. The first part https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyvgBe9VV70 is just David Albert and Sean Carroll. It's quite reminiscent of JKC and Bruno, using the same thought experiments (but more civil). Brent -- You received this message becaus

<    1   2