I Why do we experience the Born Rule in Many Worlds?

[PeterDonis]

So MWI doesn't solve a problem but poses one?

According to its proponents, it solves one. If you don't agree with its solution, then of course you're not an MWI proponent. But, as I have already said, disputes about which intepretation is correct are not going to be solved by PF discussion and, according to the guidelines for this forum, are off topic here. The best we can do is to figure out, according to the most current literature, what each interpretation's proponents say it says, their arguments for it, and skeptical arguments in the literature against it.

 

[gentzen]

This doesn't make sense. If you have a forum on "interpretation of QT", it must be allowed to discuss about, which interpretation is considered correct or not for which reasons. Which sense should otherwise proposals for ever new interpretations have?

That is indeed tricky, especially with respect to MWI. In a certain sense, both Bohmian mechanics and "Everett" are still only math, which still needs to be interpreted, despite appearances to the opposite. For BM, at least there are only very few different schools, essentially just the Valentini school, the typicality school, and the rest. For MWI, there are nearly as many schools as there are variants of Copenhagen, and some of those schools are somewhat problematic in their behavior and claims:

... I still don't see the huge contradictions with the video that you notice, but maybe this is not important, see next point.

> And the comment about Many Worlds at the end of the video capped it off.

I initially brushed off those remarks about Many Worlds as irrelevant. That was a mistake, they should have triggered me to check whether Harvey R Brown is a well known MWI proponent, and if yes which "school". "Faculty of Philosophy and Wolfson College, Oxford" indicates that he indeed might be a well known MWI proponent of "Simon Saunders' decoherence/emergence" school. Indeed, he even cowrote a paper with David Wallace. And he seems to have a track record of not getting even Tim Maudlin's clearest points (like "Note that Brown and Wallace see fit to avail themselves of the terminology ‘configuration space’ while simultaneously denying the very existence of the particles that might be in any configuration and, presumably, the low-dimensional space that the multiplicity of particles might commonly inhabit.").

Therefore, I should have interpreted Brown's reference to Tim Maudlin as a way for Brown to express his disagreement. Instead I interpreted it as an acknowledgment of Maudlin's point. Sorry. So I was definitively wrong when I wrote:

> For me, this proves beyond reasonable doubt that you are accusing Harvey Brown of commiting a mistake that he did not commit!

I hope you understand that I don't want to publicly embarrass myself even more. So I will stop this "public discussion" here, especially since ...

How should you handle this state of affairs, in non-academic, public dicussions?

 

[vanhees71]

I'd tell the public precisely these state of affairs. It's symptomatic that people misunderstand each other due to the uncertainty in their statements. Everybody can then come to an own opinion about the issue.

 

[PeterDonis]

Thread closed for moderation.

 

[PeterDonis]

After moderator review, this thread will remain closed. Thanks to all who participated.