Richard,
On 25 Oct 2012, at 18:42, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno,
Doesn't the Gleason Theorem negate MWI by assigning probabilities?
Richard
On the contrary. Gleason theorem solves the "measure problem"
intrinsic in the Everett MWI, it makes the probabilities into comp (or
weakening) first person indeterminacies.
Unfortunately, comp necessitates a version of Gleason theorem for all
comp states, not just the quantum one, as the quantum law must be
derived from the 1p indeterminacies, occurring in arithmetic.
The advantage is that comp provides the theory of both quanta and
qualia (and a whole theology actually).
Unfortunately, it is not yet clear if those quanta behave in a
sufficiently quantum mechanical way, like making possible quantum
computers, hydrogen, strings may be, etc.
Bruno
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-
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.
--
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
.
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.
