On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/27/2015 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > 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). > > > Gleason's theorem (or simpler: Destouches-Février, or Finkelstein > (simplified in Selesnick's book) + the comp FPI + the SWE explains the > Born rule. > > > I don't think so. FPI doesn't imply a measure; > indeterminancy=/=probability. > No the FPI doesn't imply a probabilioty, but it tells us why subjects feel like a selection has occurred, and why it seems random. In the same way CI proponents say collapse provides the selection of one thing to exist which is random, FPI tells us why that is still the case even when multiple outcomes are realized. > Gleason't theorem only shows that a measure must be the Born rule in order > to be a consistent probability measure. > Right, so then Gleason's theorem provides the measure, and FPI provides the illusion of selection. > But it's not so clear how FPI implies some measure satisfying Kolmogorov's > axioms. > > What kind of answer would satisfy you? What could it possibly look like? 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.
