Bruce, You keep assuming one observer per sequence and uniform sampling, but that assumption is yours, not Everett’s. In Everett’s framework, the relative weights aren’t arbitrary — they’re determined by the amplitudes in the wavefunction. By rejecting that, you’re refuting a simplified model of your own making, not MWI itself. If your argument truly applied to Everett’s theory, you should be able to show how it addresses the role of measure instead of ignoring it.
Quentin All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) Le mar. 26 août 2025, 14:14, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> a écrit : > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLR1%3DXtEb%3D1s%2BtSJCFqEnCsq-unSDUAJp2-G%2B%2BJca_r5kw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CAMW2kAqCmtXKSnZjZsm6ZwkYJ7M0zJFKHwV%3Dk5KVQ_JCLcOd_w%40mail.gmail.com.
