On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > You deny that you are conscious, or have a first person view? Are you okay with someone torturing or killing you? > > > 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. > Why does Gleason's theorem work for CI but not MW? > > > 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! > It follows from the SWE. > > > > 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, Let's go with frequentest. > and the Born rule relating small terms to low probabilities, in order to > get anywhere. Okay. > 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. Work remaining to be done is not an argument against the theory. Jason -- 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.
