Bruno, Doesn't the Gleason Theorem negate MWI by assigning probabilities? Richard
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
