On 22/11/2017 1:01 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
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.
It's question-begging because the fact that QM is a probabilistic theory
is not part of the theory, as are the wave function and the SE.
Probability may be part of Dirac's equipment, but then he does not
invoke a wave function or the SE.
Bruce
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
