On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 4:56 PM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bruce, > > The measure isn’t something I’m inventing, it’s implicit in the squared > amplitudes of the wavefunction. The Schrödinger equation preserves the L² > norm, and decoherence ensures that branches with extremely low amplitudes > contribute negligibly to observer statistics. Ignoring that structure and > treating all branches as equally weighted is not quantum mechanics, it’s > just branch counting under a flat prior. > The trouble with that idea is that the Schrodinger equation is insensitive to the amplitudes. You can change the amplitudes on the wavefunction with binary outcomes and you get exactly the same set of 2^N sequences. So actually all the sequences have the same weight -- construction from repeated trials with both outcomes realized on every trial ensures that all 2^N sequences occur with equal weight. So there is no way in which there are low weight or low probability sequences. Anyway, such an argument fails because you can change the Born probability of a zero at will, by changing the amplitudes in the original wave function. And the proportion of zeros in any sequence is an estimate of the probability of obtaining a zero. These proportions change over sequences, so most will give a probability estimate that disagrees with the Born probability. 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/CAFxXSLTRTqsqc6SNUrp%3DKj-epnrqj9KGDRK8wb%2Bvpfu0-zyTEQ%40mail.gmail.com.
