Well Bruno, If the "measure problem" (which I take to be the assignment of probabilities) is intrinsic to Everett's MWI, does that not amount to negating it? I did not suggest that it negated comp, which is what you responded to. Richard
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[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. >> > > 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.
