3 ms·
I don't think it helps, I think it just punts on the question. Let's get concrete: I fire a polarised photon at a polarised filter oriented 30° off. In Copenha
by repsilat 7y ago
I don't think it helps, I think it just punts on the question. Let's get concrete:
I fire a polarised photon at a polarised filter oriented 30° off. In Copenhagen there's a 75% chance it goes through, and a 25% chance it hits the filter. In MWI there are two branches, one with squared amplitude of 0.75 and another with squared amplitude of 0.25, and there's a "me" on each side.
Now, say I can bet on what happens at even money. In Copenhagen we'd say "betting on the photon going through is positive expectation." In MWI though, one of "me" wins and the other loses, and we just say "there's less subjective chance of being the loser"? Or "the loser has less amplitude, so less moral weight"?
I don't think it's super satisfying.
- GoblinSlayer 7y agoBayesianism suggests you to derive your decision from squared amplitudes, MWI provides you the same numbers 0.75 and 0.25, you can use them as usual. This doesn't look specific to quantum mechanics, how does it work with other deterministic systems, like casino? Also bayesianism predates quantum mechanics.
- repsilat 7y agoSorry, I thought your original post was meant to address my original point. I said that the Born Rule (the association between squared amplitudes and subjective probabilities) isn't intuitive in MWI, and I thought you said "It makes sense because of Bayesianism." Does it provide a deductive argument for using the squared amplitude? Or does it just make use of the same empirical evidence everyone else uses, and actually not provide any explanatory power?