If you’re going to ask “how big” a chunk of the wavefunction is (which is the right way to compute the relative probabilities of being an observer that sees such-and-such), the only sane answer is going to be the L^2 norm (i.e. the Born probabilities).
Why is that the right way to compute probability? By number, most worlds don’t have anythign like a born rule. By L^2, most worlds have the Born rule. Why is it the L^2 that matters? Why do we seem more likely to find ourselves in the Born worlds? I am utterly confused about anthropics.
I’d like to see that article, but if I understand your proposed solution, I wouldn’t stop being confused.
Hanson’s semi-solution (mangled worlds) at least makes the confusion go away (most surviving worlds have born rule).
Hanson’s semi-solution (mangled worlds) at least makes the confusion go away (most surviving worlds have born rule).
There is a general pattern of discrete things (balls, springs, discrete “worlds”) being less confusing components to build a model out of. So it makes sense that “mangled worlds” isn’t confusing, despite being totally wrong :P
If we don’t hack up the universe into discrete bits, then instead of talking about the number of worlds we have to talk about “amount of world.” And that’s confusing already :D I’m certainly still confused by it, in the sense of not being able to easily picture how we get high-level observations from the low-level model.
Would it help if for every case where counting discrete worlds gave you the right answer, measuring “amount of world” also has to work?
Why is that the right way to compute probability? By number, most worlds don’t have anythign like a born rule. By L^2, most worlds have the Born rule. Why is it the L^2 that matters? Why do we seem more likely to find ourselves in the Born worlds? I am utterly confused about anthropics.
I’d like to see that article, but if I understand your proposed solution, I wouldn’t stop being confused.
Hanson’s semi-solution (mangled worlds) at least makes the confusion go away (most surviving worlds have born rule).
There is a general pattern of discrete things (balls, springs, discrete “worlds”) being less confusing components to build a model out of. So it makes sense that “mangled worlds” isn’t confusing, despite being totally wrong :P
If we don’t hack up the universe into discrete bits, then instead of talking about the number of worlds we have to talk about “amount of world.” And that’s confusing already :D I’m certainly still confused by it, in the sense of not being able to easily picture how we get high-level observations from the low-level model.
Would it help if for every case where counting discrete worlds gave you the right answer, measuring “amount of world” also has to work?
But why do our experiences seem selected from an “amount of world” distribution? What the hell is going on here?
If I understand correctly, that you mean a case where counting and measure gave same (born rule) answer, I guess that would make me less confused.