On 27 Feb 2015, at 00:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 February 2015 at 10:01, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
MWI predicts the same as QM+collapse.
Only because it assumes the Born rule applies to give a probability
interpretation to the density matrix. But Everettista's either
ignore the need for the Born rule or they suppose it can be derived
from the SWE (although all attempts have fallen short).
This is an important point. Do any interpretations explain the Born
rule? If so, that would be a reason to prefer them to the MWI.
Gleason's theorem says the Born rule is the only consistent way to
assign probabilities to states in Hilbert space (showing Born had
good intuition). So if you can justify placing a measure on the
multiple worlds it has to be Born's rule.
I am glad d to hear that.
The problem seems to be that branch counting doesn't make sense
unless the number of branches are infinite.
Idem.
But if they're infinite it's not clear how to define the measure.
Perhaps taking the limit of branch counting as the number of UD
threads goes to infinity would work, but that seems non-Platonic
since it would rely the threads coming into existence as on a
concrete UD.
That is not a problem, given that in the arithmetical reality, the
thread also come into existence with respect to the UD-basic time, as
the notion of steps is independent of you and me.
But there are problems with defining the measure in that way, boith
technical, and philosophical (we lost the possibility to distinguish
the communicable and non communicable part, like the quanta and the
qualia).
But that problem is solved in the interview of the introspective
machine (by the Solovay split between G and G*, and its inheritance in
some of the intensional variants of self-reference).
This is separate (I think) from the basis problem.
Yes.
Under a computationalist theory of mind it would seem that you need
to define bases with eigenvectors like, "I see the needle pointing
up." But we only know (approximately) how to define eigenvectors
for the needle.
That is not a conceptual problem.
Bruno
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 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
