(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Attempts to make the Born rule "emerge" explicitly from outcome counting

I would like to compare and contrast the various attempts to date to reconstruct the MWI so that it: 1) assumes outcome counting instead of the Born rule, but also 2) makes correct experimental predictions. This is an offshoot of the discussions:

"my paper on the Born rule..."

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=95585

and

"Are World Counts Incoherent?"

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=101339

These two threads discuss arguments for and against outcome counting (= the APP); on this thread, we can just assume the APP and take it from there.

As far as I know, the only serious attempts to do this explicitly are Graham's 1973 paper, Robin Hanson's "mangled worlds" paper, Michael Weissman's paper, and my own work-in-progress. (Many-minds might also be thrown into the mix, but I think not ...) Since Mike and Robin are both here, we should have a good discussion!

Here are some points of comparison that occur to me:

1) Is the underlying theory linear or nonlinear, and which would we expect/prefer?

2) Are there any "ontological" concerns raised by the modification?

3) Are there any experimental tests?

4) How do we explain the underlying postulates?

5) Does it involve pruning or extra branching?

6) Are the number of branches (allowed to be) finite or infinite? Discrete or continuous?

If anyone knows of any other attempts, or can think of other ways to compare/contrast these schemes, then post!

David

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**