Mentz114 said:
Do those axioms include the bit about the outcomes of the operator will occur one at a time with probabilities determined by the eigenvalues of the operatior ? I understand the MW ditches that by asserting that every outcome exists in a branch.
Of course it does - its in axiom 2.
What you are probably talking about is MW also has a decision theory proof of axiom 2. That is controversial. I prefer to stick with Gleason. There was a thread a while back looking at the various proofs - but it is at an advanced level not really suitable here in a beginners thread. But to be fair I spoke about things like eigenvalues etc that are I level, not B level to flesh out the OP's logic that MW is logically flawed. That is a very strong statement that can only be discussed at the proper technical level. I do not really like doing that - but then again like I said it is a rather strong statement. You can do a search on the thread if you like - but beware it is at the A level.
Murray Gell-Mann explains that the worlds in MW are not really what the usual conception of a world is - Everett, Wallace and others are talking of something less concrete, although one can, if one wishes think of it that way. But what he points out is to what gain - except confusing people. And when thought of in what he thinks of as the correct way it becomes more of a semantic issue if it's any different to the Decoherent Histories approach he, Hartle and Feynman (just before he died) developed.
Please, please, I know its a pain but do look at Murray's video. Murray of course, along with Feynman were the two great physicists at Caltech. Nobody else there could really keep up with them - Murray could only converse at his level with Feynman and initially they were very good friends - you would find them talking all the time with most other physicists just sitting there amazed at how freely the ideas and concepts flowed. Both, like one of the other great physicists of the time, Lev Landau, were so at ease with the physics behind the math it was literally frightening. But Murray and Feynman became a bit estranged later due to differences in style which you can Google. When Feynman died Murray was quite saddened, and was to give a eulogy at his wake. He never turned up and some thought was it because of his estrangement. It wasn't - he was dressed, ready to leave, when FBI agents detained him about a matter to do with possibly stolen Mayan artifacts - that was one of the differences between he and Feynman - Murray was interested in cultural things like that while Feynman was more along the lines of - I am just a kid from Far Rockaway that has seen through the ways of you city slickers. Not germane to the issue here of course, just an interesting aside on Gell-Mann and why what he says in the video should be taken seriously.
Just to finish - there in no logical contradiction in MW - but I would prefer the OP to understand that himself rather than me explaining why.
Thanks
Bill
