Also, you should care about worlds proportional to the square of their amplitude.
It’s actually interesting to consider why this must be the case. Without it, I concede that maybe some sort of Quantum Anthropic Shadow could be true. I’m thinking it would lead to lots of wacky consequences.
To clarify, its not a question of possibly rejecting the square-amplitude Born Rule while keeping many worlds. Its a question of whether the square-amplitude Born Rule makes sense within the many worlds perspective, and it if doesn’t what should be modified about the many worlds perspective to make it make sense.
It looks like even Everett had his own derivation of Born rule from his model, but in his model there is no “many worlds” but just evolution of unitary function. As I remember, he analyzed memories of an agent—so he analyzed past probabilities, but not future probabilities. This is an interesting fact in the context of this post where the claim is about the strangeness of the future probabilities.
But even if we exclude MWI, pure classical inflationary Big World remains with multiple my copies distributed similarly to MWI-branches. This allow something analogues to quantum immortality to exist even without MWI.
It’s actually interesting to consider why this must be the case. Without it, I concede that maybe some sort of Quantum Anthropic Shadow could be true. I’m thinking it would lead to lots of wacky consequences.
The question of “why should the observed frequencies of events be proportional to the square amplitudes” is actually one of the places where many people perceive something fishy or weird with many worlds. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355219809000306 ]
To clarify, its not a question of possibly rejecting the square-amplitude Born Rule while keeping many worlds. Its a question of whether the square-amplitude Born Rule makes sense within the many worlds perspective, and it if doesn’t what should be modified about the many worlds perspective to make it make sense.
It looks like even Everett had his own derivation of Born rule from his model, but in his model there is no “many worlds” but just evolution of unitary function. As I remember, he analyzed memories of an agent—so he analyzed past probabilities, but not future probabilities. This is an interesting fact in the context of this post where the claim is about the strangeness of the future probabilities.
But even if we exclude MWI, pure classical inflationary Big World remains with multiple my copies distributed similarly to MWI-branches. This allow something analogues to quantum immortality to exist even without MWI.