....
On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 2:48:33 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> 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
>
On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 2:48:33 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> 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
>
Born's rule is one of the postulates of QM, so I don't see how you can deny
that probability theory is part of QM. I can't recall how probabilities in
QM are calculated in Dirac's relativistic theory. Maybe you meant the
Heisenberg picture where there are no wave functions. AG
--
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.
