<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Everett and the Born Rule · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0810.2657/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0810.2657/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Everett and the Born Rule — mentioned by boole1854</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31521565</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:0810.2657:31521565</guid><pubDate>Thu, 26 May 2022 18:07:25 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;To summarize the argument that the blog post makes: The multiverse interpretation accounts for cases where the probabilities of each distinct observable outcome are equal according to the Born rule. But it cannot account for cases where the Born rule says there are non-equal probabilities for the possible outcomes. This is a fairly common problem which critics of the multiverse interpretation raise. See [1] for another example where a critic raises that problem in more detail (with examples). Deutsch and others have responded. In short, the reply is that the mathematics of the Schrodinger…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0810.2657/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>quant-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
