Bruce, If your derivation is as solid as you claim, then a skeptical referee is exactly who you should want to convince. Repeating the same argument here without engaging with the role of amplitudes will not make it any stronger. You cannot dismiss amplitudes entirely and then claim to have explained why measure must be uniform, that is circular.
If you truly believe your reasoning refutes the Born rule within Everett’s framework, then publishing it is the only way to settle the matter. Otherwise, endlessly asserting it here looks less like confidence and more like avoidance. Your entire argument hinges on assuming uniform observer sampling by postulating one observer per branch. But that is precisely the point under debate, not a derived result. If you ignore the role of amplitudes in defining the structure of the wavefunction, you're not engaging with Everett's formulation, only with your own simplified model. Until you demonstrate why amplitudes should be irrelevant within unitary evolution, claiming equal weights is just assuming your conclusion. Quentin All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) Le mer. 27 août 2025, 07:01, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> a écrit : > On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 2:53 PM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Bruce, >> >> You keep repeating the same circular reasoning: you assume one observer >> per branch, then conclude uniform sampling by observers, then use that to >> claim equal measure. But Everett’s relative-state formulation does not >> require discrete worlds or a uniform observer distribution — that is your >> interpretation, not a derivation. >> > > No. The result is certainly derived from the fact that Everett assumes > that every outcome is realized in every interaction. You have not shown > this result to be invalid. You have merely asserted that it is so. > > If you think there is more than one observer per branch, prove that this > is so from the mathematics! > > Carrying amplitudes through unitarity without giving them any role is >> precisely the point of contention. Ignoring them does not make their >> influence vanish; it only means you are not engaging with the core >> question. If you assert that your construction proves all branches have >> equal measure, then you are assuming the conclusion you're trying to >> establish. >> > > The simple fact is that the amplitudes play no role in the argument I am > making. > > If you are certain this invalidates any amplitude-based measure and thus >> the Born rule, the proper way forward is still the same: publish the >> derivation and let it stand under peer review. Repeating it here without >> addressing counterarguments doesn't make it more correct, just more >> dogmatic. >> > > If I can't convince you, how am I to convince a sceptical referee? > > 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/CAFxXSLS%2BUbym-d10vK4L5-R3LgpXCs%2BsWMjq3r%2BDKK2YkeC9LA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLS%2BUbym-d10vK4L5-R3LgpXCs%2BsWMjq3r%2BDKK2YkeC9LA%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/CAMW2kAoopv9_Ze5g%2BP%2BmA98-tvZ8iN6J20W%3Dag-KA06Q7dGGjw%40mail.gmail.com.
