On 11/21/2017 5:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 22/11/2017 12:06 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/21/2017 4:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
No, it seems that for Maudlin MWi is essentially incoherent because
it cannot come to grips with a sensible account of probabilities.
All attempts to derive probabilities and the Born rule in MWI have
been shown to be circular. Maudlin talks a little more about this in
his book.
Omnes takes the very sensible position that QM is a probabilistic
theory so it predicts probabilities. if the QM of Hilbert space
predicts probabilities, the probabilities must be those of the Born
rule.
I think there is an element of question begging in that.
He's explicitly assuming QM is a probabilistic theory. That may be
begging the question for the MWI believer who want it to be
deterministic and so have to find an explanation for the "apparent"
randomness.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
