Many-Worlds doesn’t contain or require any randomness.
I guess for whatever reason you don’t consider that to be the correct discovery?
Re:On the Nature of Time
by FrustratedMonky on Wednesday October 09, 2024 @07:49AM
(#41786836)
Because it doesn't remove the randomness from our universe. It punts it to other universes. That is great, but doesn't allow us to predict things in our individual universe.
Or another way of saying it. We have 2 answers, they are determined. That is great, we know the 2 answers, one in each universe. Now the problem is we don't know what universe we are in. Now which universe we are in is random.
We didn't move the ball towards doing something useful in our own universe.
The 'universes' are loose abstractions, not a defined part of the theory; there's no actual hard distinction between timelines, in much the same way as coastlines don't have a defined length. They all blend into each other if you look closely enough.
That said, isn't the obvious answer 'all of them'?
Guess I'm in the camp that eventually we'll find some model or discover something new, to discover what is behind the randomness, so it is no longer just random. But, yes, that is big IF.
Until then, with current theories, we couldn't do these calculations. They'd just be approximations accounting for some randomness.