On 7/24/2014 11:09 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 July 2014 18:40, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:This may clarify (or provoke) discussion of Moscow vs. Washington. It's interesting that Carroll and Sebens use FPI and Sean says it increases his confidence in Everett's MWI. But in his penultimate paragraph he essentially lays out an endorsement of Fuchs QBism, which is generally seen as the instrumentalist alternative to MWI.Brent, could you possibly summarise what you see as the essential distinction between the C&S and Fuchs alternatives "for dummies"?
I'd need to study C&S's paper a little, I just read Sean's blog summary. But Fuch's quantum Bayesianism says that the collapse of the wave function is just like the "collapse" of a classical probability distribution when we learn the value of the random variable. It's purely epistemic. It's a sort of instrumentalism.
Brent -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
