Are World Counts the Key to Understanding the Born Rule?

Thread starter RobinHanson
Start date Nov 24, 2005

In summary: In much the same way, the precise definition of "branching" is very sensitive to the details of the models of splitting being considered.Wallace's key point is that world counting is incoherent, because it requires knowing the number of branches. This is impossible, because the models of splitting considered in discussions of Everett -- usually involving two or three discrete splitting events, each producing in turn a smallish number of branches -- bear little or no resemblance to the true complexity of realistic, macroscopic quantum systems. In conclusion, Wallace claims that world counting is incoherent in all contexts, not just in some.

Nov 29, 2005

straycat

I've started a new thread on a different but (obviously) closely related topic to this one.

"Attempts to make the Born rule "emerge" explicitly from outcome counting"

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=101982

If the Born rule can be made to emerge explicitly from world counts, then that would be an "existence proof" to the claim that the title-question of this thread is: no!

:rofl:

David