Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Bruce Kellett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:51 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
On 2/26/2015 7:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
So then the mystery of the Born rule is solved. I don't see
why/how adding collapse solves anything.
I[t] adds that one of the probable states happens. MWI fails
to add that.
Isn't it enough when one considers the FPI (which tells us you
will only experience one of the probable states)?
FPI has been around a long time. In the earlier literature on the
Anthropic Principle it was known as self-selection. The problem is
that any such principle applied to QM assumes what has yet to be
proved -- namely that anything that can be considered a "self" or
"1p" to be indeterminate about.
All it requires is denying there is magic involved in the first-person
view.
That assumes that the first person view exists -- which has yet to be
proved from within the theory.
If someone created a duplicate of you in Andromeda, there would be
no way for you here on Earth to know about that view because there's no
interaction between your brain on Earth and your Brain in Andromeda.
Similarly, there's no interaction between your brain that's seen and
formed memories of measuring the up-spin electron and the one that's
seen and formed memories of measuring the down-spin electron. So unless
you're operating according to a philosophy of mind that allows it to
violate physics and learn/know about the other one, then there is no way
to avoid the selection or indeterminacy about which one you will later
subjectively identify with.
This is where the Born rule comes into play. You need some basis for
assuming that small off-diagonal terms in the density matrix correspond
to low probabilities.
The formalism merely says that an initial state evolves into a
superposition -- nothing is selected as a "person" in that
superposition that could self-select, or be an indeterminate individual.
You seem to be ignoring/eliminating/denying the existence of the
first-person perspectives create by the brains that enter states of
superposition.
You assume that this happens. prove it!
MWI does not lead to a useful notion of probability that can be
used, via the Born rule, to infer that interference terms are not
important.
I don't understand the above sentence. Could you clarify the meaning in
terms a non-physicist might understand?
As stated above, you need a notion of probability, and the Born rule
relating small terms to low probabilities, in order to get anywhere.
Attempts to derive the Born rule within the Everettian program have
proved to be either circular or incoherent. So the work remains to be done.
Bruce
--
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.
