3 ms·

> You tried to get this statistics from one measurement Huh??? When? > Other branches can be demonstrated Sure, that's just QM 101. What you cannot demonst

by lisper 1y ago

> You tried to get this statistics from one measurement Huh??? When? > Other branches can be demonstrated Sure, that's just QM 101. What you cannot demonstrate experimentally, not even in principle, is the existence of other branches with different macroscopic configurations than our own. Such branches are IPUs.

GoblinSlayer 1y ago
>Huh??? When? In the blog post you linked above: >No, it isn't because it can't account for the Born rule. See: >https://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html https://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-wo... >What you cannot demonstrate experimentally, not even in principle I provided 3 ways to demonstrate it experimentally, even in principle, not sure what problem you have.
- lisper 1y ago
  > In the blog post you linked above Again, huh??? Where in that blog post do I try to "get this [sic] statistics from one measurement"? > I provided 3 ways to demonstrate it experimentally, even in principle, not sure what problem you have. No, you didn't. You apparently don't understand what is meant by "branches with different macroscopic configurations than our own" and I don't have time to explain it to you. Sorry. Go read up on decoherence, and then come back and describe an experiment that can demonstrate the existence of a fully decohered branch. You can't, because if you could it would by definition not be fully docohered.
  - GoblinSlayer 1y ago
    >Where in that blog post do I try to "get this [sic] statistics from one measurement"? In the discussion how different people place bets on A and B outcomes of experiment. Well, you didn't state clearly why you believe that MWI doesn't account for Born rule. MWI accounts for Born rule as statistics of measurements, and the discussion of bets is the closest this in that blog post to consideration of statistics of measurements, but that discussion seemingly considers one measurement, that's why it doesn't see statistics. >Go read up on decoherence, and then come back and describe an experiment that can demonstrate the existence of a fully decohered branch. It looks like a logical problem to me. You suggest that decoherence both produces and doesn't produce fully decohered branches? Violation of the law of excluded middle? If the law of excluded middle doesn't work, I don't think experiments can demonstrate anything.
    - lisper 1y ago
      > you didn't state clearly why you believe that MWI doesn't account for Born rule That's what the whole post was about. The MWI doesn't account for the Born rule unless you add additional, questionable assumptions like branch indifference to the SE. > You suggest that decoherence both produces and doesn't produce fully decohered branches? No, that is not even remotely what I am saying. You are beginning to sound like a troll.

by lisper 1y ago

GoblinSlayer 1y ago

>Huh??? When? In the blog post you linked above: >No, it isn't because it can't account for the Born rule. See: >https://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html https://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-wo... >What you cannot demonstrate experimentally, not even in principle I provided 3 ways to demonstrate it experimentally, even in principle, not sure what problem you have.

lisper 1y ago
> In the blog post you linked above Again, huh??? Where in that blog post do I try to "get this [sic] statistics from one measurement"? > I provided 3 ways to demonstrate it experimentally, even in principle, not sure what problem you have. No, you didn't. You apparently don't understand what is meant by "branches with different macroscopic configurations than our own" and I don't have time to explain it to you. Sorry. Go read up on decoherence, and then come back and describe an experiment that can demonstrate the existence of a fully decohered branch. You can't, because if you could it would by definition not be fully docohered.
- GoblinSlayer 1y ago
  >Where in that blog post do I try to "get this [sic] statistics from one measurement"? In the discussion how different people place bets on A and B outcomes of experiment. Well, you didn't state clearly why you believe that MWI doesn't account for Born rule. MWI accounts for Born rule as statistics of measurements, and the discussion of bets is the closest this in that blog post to consideration of statistics of measurements, but that discussion seemingly considers one measurement, that's why it doesn't see statistics. >Go read up on decoherence, and then come back and describe an experiment that can demonstrate the existence of a fully decohered branch. It looks like a logical problem to me. You suggest that decoherence both produces and doesn't produce fully decohered branches? Violation of the law of excluded middle? If the law of excluded middle doesn't work, I don't think experiments can demonstrate anything.
  - lisper 1y ago
    > you didn't state clearly why you believe that MWI doesn't account for Born rule That's what the whole post was about. The MWI doesn't account for the Born rule unless you add additional, questionable assumptions like branch indifference to the SE. > You suggest that decoherence both produces and doesn't produce fully decohered branches? No, that is not even remotely what I am saying. You are beginning to sound like a troll.