lukesfn said:
I built the probabilities straight into the MWI account I gave.
My MWI account is 10 words, 9 with a red ball, 1 green.
It follows all things being even that the probability of being in word is the red ball is .9
Certain assumptions might be made, but there is no circular reasoning I can see.
I was told how things should shake out, and I made an account to explain why.
Yes, but the ideal way would be that the theory tells you how things should shake out, and then you go and check. The addition of sufficiently many worlds in order to make the probabilities come out right goes the other way around.
I also must confess to having troubles seeing how this 'measure of existence'-thing is supposed to be interpreted. Let's say we have two universes: one with a single history, and the other with that same history, just copied twice. What exactly would be the difference between these universes? I'm not sure that 'the universe contains two copies of the history' has any kind of content. Leibnitz introduced the idea of the identity of indiscernibles; according to this, one should identify the two copies of the history, and hence, the two universes.
stevendaryl said:
It seems to me that it does. If we can push it back indefinitely, then that means that perhaps no collapse has ever occurred. Yet. If that's the case, then it's hard for me to see that the meaningfulness of probabilities could depend on a collapse that happens 1000 years from now.
Well, I have some sympathies with that line of thinking. I toyed around with the idea of a particular 'objective collapse' type of theory, in which we introduce a special particle, the collapson, which induces a collapse whenever it is encountered (in fact, Penrose's objective redution is such a theory, with the collapson being the graviton). Then, we take the number of collapsons smoothly to zero, which corresponds to the collapse happening 'at infinity'. If there's no phenomenological change, then the collapse shouldn't matter, and can be done away with, right?
Unfortunately, I don't think this trick will work, because you end up with different 'asymptotical' states: one that's a proper mixture (when you have a collapse at infinity), and one that's a superposition (when you remove the collapse entirely). So while in one case, you can again basically attach a probability distribution over histories with Gleason, you can't do so in the case without collapse entirely, because the world simply fails to have one particular history.
What does "in line with" mean? Logically implied by? Logically consistent with?
Ideally, the former, but you'd be right to point out that real-world reasoning practically never works that way. However, the latter is certainly not enough, since there are innumerable possibilities at all times consistent with what we know, and putting them on the same footing would introduce an epistemic anarchism making any sort of informed decision making (and with that, science) impossible.
I agree it's a natural assumption. But the problem with
interpretations of quantum mechanics is that the collection of all natural assumptions seem to collectively be inconsistent.
That's not a reason to throw all of them out at once, however, but rather, to proceed as conservatively as possible, doing away with only what you are absolutely forced to renounce.