Many Worlds, the Born Rule, and Self-Locating Uncertainty

There’s papers that “derive” Born’s rule from the many worlds interpretations, e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7907 I don’t claim to understand them though. I have tried.

> Aren't these multiway systems essentially what we see with ambiguous grammars... Yes. > One application of these might be to resolve the meaning of probabilities under the many-worlds interpretation... There's some ways to go before we Hilbert spaces, operator algebras, and the like, but yes, the idea would be that some path counting procedure would be used to derive the Born rule. It would be great to bridge with Carroll's self-locating uncertainty paper [0] > Under the section titled "Observers, Reference Frames and Emergent Laws" in this article, you can see some branches merging again in that first graph, so perhaps the probabilities of the Born rule are due to parallel computations that merge in this way... Right! [0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7907

That's not right. The combination of 1) local 2) realist 3) determinism has been disproven by Bell's theorem. But I it's still a "pick two" kind of choice. I, personally think that by Occam's razor, the Everett interpretation ("Many Worlds") makes the most sense, because it's simplest. And actually it retains all of the above three, but it introduces "self-locating uncertainty" (http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7907), which effectively has the same kind of effect from our perspective.