On 3/2/2015 12:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 17:24, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:

    Russell Standish wrote:

        On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 07:48:49PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:

            On 3/1/2015 6:29 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

                I remain unconvinced that that probabilities are undefined.

                Tegmark gave an interesting version of how to get Born's rule 
from
                MWI, which seemed to have legs. Deutsch gave one based on 
decision
                theory that is admittedly unsatisfying.

                My own derivation simply assumed that observers had measure. The
                probability of an outcome is proportional to the measure of the
                observers

            What's "the measure of the observers"?  That's usually where the
            implicit assumption of Born's rule sneaks in.


        It's not implicit, but quite explicit that observers are drawn from an
        ensemble of all possible observers with an associated
        measure. Somewhat later, we identify that measure with the complex
        magnitude of the QM state vector. It is still problematic that the
        measure turns out to be complex, rather than say quaternionic or
        something more general, though.

        I don't see it as implicitly assuming Born's rule, though. The exact
        functional dependence of probability on the observer's state could be
        anything, but it turns out it has to be given by Born's rule (assuming
        Kolmogorov's probability axioms, of course).


    In other words, it doesn't appear to avaoid the problem with MWI pointed 
out by
    Dawid and Thebault:

    http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9542/1/Decoherence_Archive.pdf

    You effectively assume the Born rule in order to get your ensemble of 
observers out
    of the superposition.


Do superpositions still occur in the MWI? I thought they were supposed to be branches (which are perhaps able to recombine) ?

Sure, it's an interpretation of the mathematics. It doesn't change the mathematics. A pure state that's not a superposition in one basis is a superposition in a different basis. Deutsch's argument that a conscious quantum computer will confirm MWI depends on the computer being in superposition of different worlds so that they can interfere during its computation.

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.

Reply via email to