We understand why the evolution of classical systems is governed by classical probabilities—just churn through the quantum mechanics. Decoherence is very simple...
Decoherence isn’t actually enough to show why quantum amplitudes show up as classical probabilities- if it were the Born-amplitude problem in many worlds would be solved. You need assumptions to turn “the wavefunction looks like this” into “the wavefunction looks like this so we expect to see result A with probability whatever.” Decoherence tells us off-diagonal elements in the density matrix aren’t likely to survive interaction with a larger system- thats not enough to connect to experimental values.
You jump straight from decoherence to “experiencing branches” without defining what you mean by “branch. ”
My point was that we have no uncertainty about any physical processes involved, only about why we experience what we do. We aren’t uncertain about why classical computers are classical, or why L2-typical observers would experience classical probabilities.
The fact that you experience the outcomes of physical experiments at all requires explanation. I don’t see why that explanation is easier if you use probabilities or counting measure (especially given an infinite universe) rather than amplitude. It seems like bad form to absorb confusion about the hard problem of consciousness into confusion about physics, given that I at least cannot imagine any physics that would resolve my confusion about consciousness.
Decoherence isn’t actually enough to show why quantum amplitudes show up as classical probabilities- if it were the Born-amplitude problem in many worlds would be solved. You need assumptions to turn “the wavefunction looks like this” into “the wavefunction looks like this so we expect to see result A with probability whatever.” Decoherence tells us off-diagonal elements in the density matrix aren’t likely to survive interaction with a larger system- thats not enough to connect to experimental values.
You jump straight from decoherence to “experiencing branches” without defining what you mean by “branch. ”
My point was that we have no uncertainty about any physical processes involved, only about why we experience what we do. We aren’t uncertain about why classical computers are classical, or why L2-typical observers would experience classical probabilities.
The fact that you experience the outcomes of physical experiments at all requires explanation. I don’t see why that explanation is easier if you use probabilities or counting measure (especially given an infinite universe) rather than amplitude. It seems like bad form to absorb confusion about the hard problem of consciousness into confusion about physics, given that I at least cannot imagine any physics that would resolve my confusion about consciousness.
So it’s enough to establish a quasi-classical preferred basis, but you still have the Born Rule problem? But one is solved ?