but there’s also an argument that the “losing” branches spread out
They don’t spread much faster compared to “winning” branches I guess? World has no particular dependence on what random number I generated above, so all the splits and merges have approximately same shape in either of the eight branch regions.
That’sexactly how decoherent branching works .. if it works. It’s not a causal process that leaves causal traces.
With a remark that “decoherent branching” and “coherent branching” are presumably just one process differing in how much the information is contained or spreads out, and noting that should LW erase the random number from my comment above plus every of us to totally forget it, the branches would approximately merge,
yes I agree. Contents of worlds in those branches do not causally interact with us, but amplitudes might at some point in future. AFAIK Eliezer referenced the latter while assigning label “real” to each and every world (each point of wavefunction).
They don’t spread much faster compared to “winning” branches I guess
They don’t spread faster, they spread wider. Their low amplitude information is smeared over an environmental already containing a lot of other low amplitude information, noise in effect. So the chances of recovering it are zero for all practical purposes.
With a remark that “decoherent branching” and “coherent branching” are presumably just one process differing in how much the information is contained or spreads out
Well, no. In a typical measurement, a single particle interacts with an apparatus containing trillions, and that brings about decoherence very quickly, so quickly it can appear like collapse. Decoherent branches, being macroscopic , stable and irreversible, for all practical purposes, are the opposite to coherent ones.
They don’t spread much faster compared to “winning” branches I guess? World has no particular dependence on what random number I generated above, so all the splits and merges have approximately same shape in either of the eight branch regions.
With a remark that “decoherent branching” and “coherent branching” are presumably just one process differing in how much the information is contained or spreads out,
and noting that should LW erase the random number from my comment above plus every of us to totally forget it, the branches would approximately merge,
yes I agree. Contents of worlds in those branches do not causally interact with us, but amplitudes might at some point in future. AFAIK Eliezer referenced the latter while assigning label “real” to each and every world (each point of wavefunction).
They don’t spread faster, they spread wider. Their low amplitude information is smeared over an environmental already containing a lot of other low amplitude information, noise in effect. So the chances of recovering it are zero for all practical purposes.
Well, no. In a typical measurement, a single particle interacts with an apparatus containing trillions, and that brings about decoherence very quickly, so quickly it can appear like collapse. Decoherent branches, being macroscopic , stable and irreversible, for all practical purposes, are the opposite to coherent ones.