On 2/21/2013 9:06 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:56 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 2/21/2013 7:10 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
    Question: Why is the "derivation"* of the Born Rule in (Everett, 1957) not
    considered satisfactory**?

    *Everett shows that the amplitude-squared rule for subjective probability 
is the
    only measure consistent with an agreeable additivity condition.

    Gleason's theorem is to the same effect.  But both start with the 
assumption that
    the wave-function amplitude determines the probability - and then they show 
it must
    be via the Born rule.

OK, I see, thanks. I suppose then that the decision-theory derivation drops 
this assumption?

It doesn't make it explicitly, but I think it makes an equivalent assumption which is why the problem isn't regarded as solved.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to