Bruce, Everett’s original formulation describes a universal wavefunction evolving unitarily, not discrete worlds with one observer per branch. Your argument assumes this mapping, but it is an interpretative choice, not a result derived from the Schrödinger equation.
Also, your claim that all 2^N sequences have equal measure only holds if amplitudes are treated as irrelevant. In standard quantum mechanics, amplitudes directly determine observed frequencies via the Born rule, which has strong experimental support. Ignoring amplitudes means you are no longer analyzing Everett’s framework but a different model where the Born rule indeed fails. To refute Everett with Born included, you would need to show that even when squared amplitudes define a natural measure, the predicted observed frequencies still fail. Assuming uniform sampling over sequences does not establish that. This is why your derivation is not accepted: it relies on a hidden premise, one observer per branch with uniform sampling, which is not part of Everettian quantum mechanics. Quentin All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) Le mer. 27 août 2025, 07:32, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> a écrit : > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTqmwjWPL45KfJwEJRqr5_VOZETJZKZaCE3tZamgVBXbg%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/CAMW2kAp6jiQmTmu%3D%2Bd1p0XFf1axT6%2BBSp4EMbna1ZJ5%2BvDp4jQ%40mail.gmail.com.
