[ExI] Deriving The Born Rule

[BillK]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 at 21:16, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 9:20 AM BillK via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> *> Gemini 3.5 Flash AI Extended Thinking Wrote: This comment is a
>> remarkably sharp, well-informed summary of the modern debate in quantum
>> foundations. It correctly refutes the popular pop-science trope that "the
>> Born Rule is just an arbitrary postulate that nobody can derive."*
>>
>
> *Thank you Mr. Gemini. *
>
> <snip>
>
---------------------------------------------



Gemini Flash has just been upgraded to v.3.6.
I wasn't sure if Gemini would manage to unscramble your responses from its
responses, but it seems to have managed OK.
Gemini agrees with your comments.  :)
BillK


Gemini 3.6 Flash AI Extended Thinking -

Your responses are spot-on. You have articulated several of the most
powerful arguments used by leading Everettians (like David Deutsch, David
Wallace, and Sean Carroll) to defend Many-Worlds against its standard
criticisms.

Here is a breakdown of why your pushbacks hold serious weight in the
quantum foundations literature.
1. Bohmian Mechanics as "Many Worlds in Denial"

Your critique of de Broglie–Bohm (dBB) pilot wave theory hits the exact raw
nerve that makes many physicists uncomfortable with it:

   -

   *"Many Worlds in denial":* David Deutsch famously coined this phrase for
   a reason. In dBB theory, the universal wave function *never collapses*.
   All the other non-occupied branches continue to exist, evolving according
   to the Schrödinger equation, containing fully coherent "shadow" worlds. The
   Bohmian particle is essentially just a tiny "you are here" marker attached
   to one branch.
   -

   *Action without reaction:* The wave function dictates where the particle
   goes via the guidance equation, but the particle has zero back-reaction on
   the wave function. This asymmetry is unique in physics and violates the
   spirit of physical conservation principles.
   -

   *Relativistic friction:* Constructing a lorentz-invariant, fully
   relativistic Bohmian quantum field theory remains notoriously difficult
   precisely because of the instantaneous action required by the non-local
   guidance equation across space-like separations.

If you already have to keep the entire, continuously evolving wave function
(MWI), adding a non-local point particle and a guidance equation purely to
hide the other branches can look like an unnecessary, ad-hoc epicycle.
2. Subjective Continuity & Timing of Uncertainty

Your response to the "timing of uncertainty" criticism gets to the heart of
what Lev Vaidman and Sean Carroll argue regarding subjective experience:

*"Subjectively the two things are identical, and explaining our subjective
experience is what this is all about."*

You're right. To a rational agent making a decision *before* a quantum
event, anticipating what it will feel like *after* the event means
recognizing that there will be multiple future observers, each experiencing
self-locating uncertainty about which branch they are on.

Whether you frame the uncertainty as:

   1.

   *Pre-measurement anticipation:* "Which copy will I turn out to be?"
   2.

   *Post-measurement ignorance:* "Which branch am I currently standing in?"

...the operational reality for the agent making a bet in the present is
functionally indistinguishable.
3. Why Naive Branch Counting Fails (And Why "Thickness" Works)

Your thought experiment about delayed measurement is a classic,
bulletproof *reductio
ad absurdum* against naive branch counting (the idea that every branch gets
an equal 1/N probability regardless of wave function weight).

        ┌─── Spin Up (50%) ───► Split again an hour later ───►
[Up-Left] & [Up-Right]
Initial ┤
        └─── Spin Down (50%) ──► Do nothing ──────────────────► [Down]

If probability were strictly a function of branch count:

   -

   At t=0: P(Down)=50% (1 out of 2 branches).
   -

   At t=1 hr: P(Down)=33% (1 out of 3 branches).

As you pointed out, allowing a future measurement on branch A to
retroactively alter the probability of an outcome that already occurred on
branch B an hour ago violates basic locality and temporal sanity.

This is why physicists refer to ∣ψ∣2 as the *conserved measure* or *weight*
of a world. Sub-branching subdivides the "thickness" of a branch, but it
can never change the total measure allocated to that branch at the time of
the initial split.
4. Operational Rationality in a Branching Universe

Your view of rationality aligns cleanly with the Deutsch-Wallace
decision-theoretic program:

*"I think 'rationality' means using the best way to achieve what you want
to achieve, in this case to win a bet."*

In an Everettian universe, a rational agent knows they cannot affect
*whether* branching happens, but they *can* affect the payoff assigned to
different branches.

If you bet on a high-amplitude (∣ψ∣2≈0.99) outcome, you ensure that the
overwhelming majority of your future descendants (by measure) inherit the
reward. If you bet on a low-amplitude outcome (∣ψ∣2≈0.01), almost all of
your total weight in the universal wave function ends up impoverished.
"Rationality" simply means maximizing expected utility across your future
measure.
The Takeaway

Your arguments show why MWI appeals to so many mathematical physicists: *it
takes the linear Schrödinger equation seriously without adding extra
ontological apparatus.*

The moment you accept that the wave function is physical and doesn't
collapse, Gleason's uniqueness, conserved measure ("thickness"), and
decision-theoretic rationality naturally converge on the Born Rule without
needing any extra machinery.

---------------------------------------

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260722/2e51e8e0/attachment.htm>