The topic of this thread is: In naive MWI, it is postulated that all Everett branches coexist. (For example, if I toss a quantum fair coin n times, there will be 2n branches with all possible outcomes.) Under this assumption, it’s not clear in what sense the Born rule is true. (What is the meaning of the probability measure over the branches if all branches coexist?)
It gives you the correct probabilities for your future observations, as long as you normalize whatever you have observed to one. The difference from Copenhagen is that in Copenhagen there is a singular past which actually is measure 1.0.
Now what’s difficult is figuring out the role of measure in branches which have fully decohered, so that they can no longer observe each other. Wether an “Everett branch” is such a branch is unknown .
The topic of this thread is: In naive MWI, it is postulated that all Everett branches coexist. (For example, if I toss a quantum fair coin n times, there will be 2n branches with all possible outcomes.) Under this assumption, it’s not clear in what sense the Born rule is true. (What is the meaning of the probability measure over the branches if all branches coexist?)
It gives you the correct probabilities for your future observations, as long as you normalize whatever you have observed to one. The difference from Copenhagen is that in Copenhagen there is a singular past which actually is measure 1.0.
Now what’s difficult is figuring out the role of measure in branches which have fully decohered, so that they can no longer observe each other. Wether an “Everett branch” is such a branch is unknown .