That's one interpretation. Ignorance doesn't explain individual particles exhibiting interference patterns when the slit they go through isn't detected. Or other interesting experiments demonstrating wave and particle-like properties depending on measurement.
Based on the current accepted cosmological model, chairs and walls will fluctuate into existence over vast amounts of times until eventually a chair tunnels through a wall.
Then the simulation will mercifully come to an end, and debts will be settled.
That leaves the unobserved as mystical. Whereas realist approaches think science is attempting to remove mysticism from nature by providing full explanations, not just for observation. Most of nature goes unobserved by us and our equipment. Yet it manages to carry on somehow and produce what is...
The paper, The measure problem in no-collapse (many worlds) quantum
mechanics by Stephen D. H. Hsu, discusses how "maverick branches", as defined by Everett, are a problem for MWI adherents wishing to derive the Born rule.
And why subjective probability doesn't necessarily resolve the matter...
In Sean Carrol's paper, Why Boltzmann Brains are Bad, he shows how the best current cosmological model predicts an overwhelming number of BBs, which in his view would undermine science, since it would be likely we are some kind of Boltzmann fluctuation. Therefore, it's an important issue to...
It does follow, because there's nothing stopping many events happening on a regular basis in some incredibly small part of the cosmos, whether it's branches/worlds or very, very far away. But since posters seem to think I'm misinterpreting what some physicists actually mean when they're not...
Then I'll go find papers in which physicists do discuss unlikely probabilities with both QM and thermodynamics, and why they think it matters. Maybe it doesn't for David Griffiths, but you won't have only my interpretation if you would like the actual sources.
It's more like there would be parts of the cosmos where the incredibly improbably happens on a regular basis. So coins turn up heads a thousand times in a row, dice roll sixes a million times, people walk through walls some of the time, etc. Assuming life can survive in such conditions, the...
In MWI it would have to happen in some branch, as the universal wave equation is deterministic, assuming the calculation of non-zero probability is correct. In an infinite universe, everything physically possible also happens. I was assuming a vast enough universe to contain all those low...
Yes, because there is nothing preventing it from happening in the next ten minutes. It's just incredibly unlikely. And in a vast enough universe, it would happen somewhere. That's different from something like perpetual motion. And it's potentially relevant for the cosmos over the long term...
It's a potential issue for probability in MWI and infinite universes, since it suggests there will be observers who observe incredibly improbable events, thus messing up their understanding of probability. Sean Carrol has mentioned this as a criticism of MWI. His retort is so much the worse for...
A physics answer like MWI or BM. One that's realist about the wave equation. I'm not really following your ontological commitment answer. I would say science is a guide to ontological commitments, within the limits of the scientific method.