You can say that probability comes from being calibrated—after many experiments where an event happens with probability 1⁄2 (e.g. spin up for a particle in state 1/√2 |up> + 1/√2 |down>), you’d probably have that event to happen half the time. The important word here is “probably”, which is what we are trying to understand in the first place.
I’m imagining the branch where a very unlikely outcome consistently happens (think winning a quantum lottery). Intelligent life in this branch would observe what seems like different physical laws. I just find this unsettling.
The worlds space is presumably infinite-dimensional, and also expands over time
If we take quantum mechanics, we have a quantum wavefunction in an infinite-dimensional hilbert space which is the tensor product of the hilbert space describing each particle. I’m not sure what you mean by “expands”, we just get decoherence over time. I don’t really know quantum field theory so I cannot say how this fits with special relativity. Nobody knows how to reconcile it with general relativity.
You can say that probability comes from being calibrated—after many experiments where an event happens with probability 1⁄2 (e.g. spin up for a particle in state 1/√2 |up> + 1/√2 |down>), you’d probably have that event to happen half the time. The important word here is “probably”, which is what we are trying to understand in the first place.
I’m imagining the branch where a very unlikely outcome consistently happens (think winning a quantum lottery). Intelligent life in this branch would observe what seems like different physical laws. I just find this unsettling.
If we take quantum mechanics, we have a quantum wavefunction in an infinite-dimensional hilbert space which is the tensor product of the hilbert space describing each particle. I’m not sure what you mean by “expands”, we just get decoherence over time. I don’t really know quantum field theory so I cannot say how this fits with special relativity. Nobody knows how to reconcile it with general relativity.