The appearance of
indeterminism can nevertheless be described branch-relatively. Before examining
a record, an observer lacks
information about which recorded result will be encountered in
a future branch-relative
history. After
measurement, each descendant has one stable record and
experiences a definite result. This is more than saying that
a classical observer does not know
a predetermined hidden
bit, because the global state includes multiple continuing record structures rather than one
unknown selected
trajectory.
The hard question is why
uncertainty or rational expectation should follow the
Born weights ∣α∣2,∣β∣2.
Decoherence explains approximately autonomous records and
a preferred coarse-grained
basis, but does not by itself turn all branch counts into
a unique
measure. Literal
counting is ill-defined because branches do not have
a uniquely fixed
number. Decision-theoretic,
symmetry or typicality
arguments try to justify squared-
amplitude weights and their role in observed
frequencies, but their auxiliary assumptions must be assessed rather than silently called consequences of
unitary dynamics alone.
The interpretation can therefore account structurally for the appearance of definite unpredictable outcomes without adding dynamical
randomness. Whether that completely
accounts for
probability depends on
a successful connection from
branch weights to expectation and confirmation. Its strength is
a uniform dynamical
law for system and observer; its cost is an
ontology and
probability account that go beyond the
experience of one apparently unique outcome.
[ref]