On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 09:25:57AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 8:49 AM Russell Standish <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 11:38:52AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > Many worlds theory does not have any comparable way of relating > probabilities > > to the properties of the wave function. In fact, if all possibilities > are > > realized on every trial, the majority of observers will get results that > > contradict the Born probabilities. > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "contradict", but the majority of > observers will get results that lie within one standard deviation of > the expected value (ie mean) according to the distribution of Born > probabilities. If this is what you mean by "contradict", then you are > trivially correct, but uninteresting. If you mean the above statement > is false according to the MWI, then I'd like to know why. It sure > doesn't seem so to me. > > > It does depend on what value you take for N, the number of trials. In the > limit > of very large N, the law of large numbers does give the result you suggest. > But > for intermediate values of N, MWI says that there will always be branches for > which the ratio of successes to N falls outside any reasonable error bound on > the expected Born value. > > This problem has been noted by others, and when asked about it, Carroll simply > dismissed the poor suckers that get results that invalidate the Born Rule as > just poor unlucky suckers. Sure, in a single world system, there is always a > small probability that you will get anomalous results. But that is always a > small probability. Whereas, in MWI, there are always such branches with > anomalous results, even for large N. The difference is important. >
Yes, but the proportion of "poor unlucky suckers" in the set of all observers becomes vanishingly small as the number of observers tend to infinity. As JC says, we don't know if the number of observers is countably infinite (which would be my guess), uncountably infinite or just plain astronomically large. In any case, the proportion of observers seeing results outside of one standard deviation is of measure zero for practical purposes. If that is not the case, please explain. > The other point is that the set of branches obtained in Everettian many worlds > is independent of the amplitudes, or the Born probabilities for each outcome, > so observations on any one branch cannot be used as evidence, either for or > against the theory. > We've had this discussion before. They're not independent, because the preparation of the experiment that defines the Born probabilities filters the set of allowed branches from which we sample the measurements. > See the articles by Adrian Kent and David Albert in "Many Worlds: Everett, > Quantum Theory, and Reality"(OUP, 2010) Edited by Saunders, Barrett, Kent, and > Wallace. > I've already got a copy of Kent's paper in my reading stack. Albert's paper appears to be behind a paywall, alas :(. In any case, it'll be a while before I get to the paper - just wondering if you had a 2 minute explanation of the argument. What I've heard so far on this list hasn't been particularly convincing. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders [email protected] http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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/Z6kxY8ExHQZB23lT%40zen.
