On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why isn't "It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born
rule." a good explanation. I'm all for finding a better
explanation, i.e. a deterministic one. But simply postulating an
ensemble of worlds to make the probabilities "deterministic" in
arbitrary way doesn't strike me as any improvement.
It is, as it explains interference, without adding something not
well defined (apparatus, observer) not obeying QM (like with the
collapse needed to get one physical reality).
That sounds like prejudice against probabilistic theories.
Only against theories which postulate "objective" indeterminacy (and
what is that?) to avoid a simpler theory.
The interference is inherent in the complex Hilbert space states.
The interference happens in one world. As Omnes says, you don't
need 'collapse' you just need to accept that you have calculated
probabilities. That's what probability means - some state is
actualized and others aren't.
That sort of probability seems quite magic to me. And useless, as
first person indeterminacy explains their appearance completely, in
simpler theories, like the CTM or Everett QM.
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.
