Bruno,

Doesn't the Gleason Theorem negate MWI by assigning probabilities?
Richard

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 24 Oct 2012, at 19:53, meekerdb wrote:
>
> On 10/24/2012 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Oct 2012, at 14:50, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> Hi meekerdb
>
> There are a number of theories to explain the collapse of the quantum wave
> function
> (see below).
>
> 1) In subjective theories, the collapse is attributed
> to consciousness (presumably of the intent or decision to make
> a measurement).
>
>
> This leads to ... solipsism. See the work of Abner Shimony.
>
>
>
>
> 2) In objective or decoherence theories, some physical
> event (such as using a probe to make a measurement)
> in itself causes decoherence of the wave function. To me,
> this is the simplest and most sensible answer (Occam's Razor).
>
>
> This is inconsistent with quantum mechanics. It forces some devices into NOT
> obeying QM.
>
>
> No, it's only inconsistent with a reified interpretation of the wf.  It's
> perfectly consistent with an instrumentalist interpretation.  Decoherence is
> a prediction of QM in any interpretation.  It's the einselection that's a
> problem.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> But instrumentalism is just an abandon of searching knowledge. There is no
> more what, only how.
> An instrumentalist will just not try to answer the question of betting if
> there is 0, 1, 2, ... omega, ... universes.
>
> And the einselection is not a problem at all, in QM + comp. It is implied.
> And, imo, the QM corresponding measure problem is solved by Gleason theorem
> (basically).
>
> And then, keeping that same 'everything' spirit, the whole QM is explained
> by comp. We have just to find the equivalent of "Gleason theorem" for the
> "material hypostases".
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 3) There is also the many-worlds interpretation, in which collapse
> of the wave is avoided by creating an entire universe.
> This sounds like overkill to me.
>
>
> This is just the result of applying QM to the couple "observer + observed".
> It is the literal reading of QM.
>
>
>
>
> So I vote for decoherence of the wave by a probe.
>
>
> You have to abandon QM, then, and not just QM, but comp too (which can only
> please you, I guess).
>
> Bruno
>
>
> 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-list@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.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.

Reply via email to