On 2/21/2013 9:06 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:56 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 2/21/2013 7:10 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
Question: Why is the "derivation"* of the Born Rule in (Everett, 1957) not
*Everett shows that the amplitude-squared rule for subjective probability
only measure consistent with an agreeable additivity condition.
Gleason's theorem is to the same effect. But both start with the
the wave-function amplitude determines the probability - and then they show
be via the Born rule.
OK, I see, thanks. I suppose then that the decision-theory derivation drops
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.