On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 3:26 PM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > The argument does not depend on this. This shows nothing more than that you have not understood the argument. 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. > I think, rather, that you should show how the argument I have made depends on amplitudes when it clearly does not. It depends merely on the proportion of zero outcomes in each sequence. And that does not depend on the amplitudes. 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/CAFxXSLTqmwjWPL45KfJwEJRqr5_VOZETJZKZaCE3tZamgVBXbg%40mail.gmail.com.
