On 8/29/2010 11:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

It is the nth attempt by Kent to refute Everett. Ah, but he maysucceed, one day.Thanks for the link. I will try to find some time to take a look.But personally I think that many-worlds is already a consequence ofmechanism, well before quantum mechanism. In that sense I think thatquantum mechanism (in physics) confirms digital mechanism (in theology).Bruno

`I'd think you'd be very happy with this paper - which comports with an`

`infinite "everything".`

Born in an Infinite Universe: a Cosmological Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

`Authors: Anthony Aguirre`

`<http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Aguirre_A/0/1/0/all/0/1>, Max`

`Tegmark <http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Tegmark_M/0/1/0/all/0/1>,`

`David Layzer <http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Layzer_D/0/1/0/all/0/1>`

(Submitted on 5 Aug 2010) Abstract: We study the quantum measurement problem in the context of an infinite, statistically uniform space, as could be generated by eternal inflation. It has recently been argued that when identical copies of a quantum measurement system exist, the standard projection operators and Born rule method for calculating probabilities must be supplemented by estimates of relative frequencies of observers. We argue that an infinite space actually renders the Born rule redundant, by physically realizing all outcomes of a quantum measurement in different regions, with relative frequencies given by the square of the wave function amplitudes. Our formal argument hinges on properties of what we term the quantum confusion operator, which projects onto the Hilbert subspace where the Born rule fails, and we comment on its relation to the oft-discussed quantum frequency operator. This analysis unifies the classical and quantum levels of parallel universes that have been discussed in the literature, and has implications for several issues in quantum measurement theory. It also shows how, even for a single measurement, probabilities may be interpreted as relative frequencies in unitary (Everettian) quantum mechanics. We also argue that after discarding a zero-norm part of the wavefunction, the remainder consists of a superposition of indistinguishable terms, so that arguably "collapse" of the wavefunction is irrelevant, and the "many worlds" of Everett's interpretation are unified into one. Finally, the analysis suggests a "cosmological interpretation" of quantum theory in which the wave function describes the actual spatial collection of identical quantum systems, and quantum uncertainty is attributable to the

`observer's inability to self-locate in this collection.`

Comments: 17 pages, 2 figures

`Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Cosmology and Extragalactic`

`Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology`

`(gr-qc); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)`

Cite as: arXiv:1008.1066v1 <http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1066v1> [quant-ph] Brent

On 29 Aug 2010, at 00:59, ronaldheld wrote:http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0905/0905.0624v2.pdf Any comments on this large apper? Ronald --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email toeverything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.