On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 8:25 PM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bruce, > > You’re assuming that each sequence has equal weight by construction, but > that’s exactly what quantum mechanics denies. The Schrödinger equation > doesn’t just produce sequences, it produces them with amplitudes, and those > amplitudes determine the statistical weight via |a|² and |b|². The fact > that sequences exist mathematically doesn’t mean they are sampled uniformly > by observers. Without introducing measure, your argument effectively > replaces quantum mechanics with flat branch counting, which is inconsistent > with the formalism itself. > I see. You are actually using the Born rule probabilities to provide your weights. That is putting the cart before the horse: you have not actually demonstrated that the Born rule even works in this model. It has nothing to do with branch counting as the origin of the Born probabilities. I do not use branch counting at any stage, and neither do I ever have to assume that the branches have equal weights or equal probabilities. That is all a canard of your own making. I simply count the number of zeros and ones in each sequence, and compare the proportions to the predicted Born probabilities. In most cases, one finds that the estimated probabilities disagree with the Born rule predictions. You have not countered this simple argument. In fact, the model produces a single observer for every sequence, so your claim that the sequences are not sampled uniformly by observers is contradicted by the simple mathematics of unitary evolution. 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/CAFxXSLR1%3DXtEb%3D1s%2BtSJCFqEnCsq-unSDUAJp2-G%2B%2BJca_r5kw%40mail.gmail.com.
