Brent Meeker wrote:
>> But Copenhagen is no better at deriving the Born Rule nor is any other >> quantum >> interpretation although Gleason's Theorem says that if the quantum wave >> function >> is related to probability then the square of the absolute valueis the >> only one that >> doesn't produce contradictions. So if you're going to have a probability >> rule involving >> the wave function its got to be the Born Rule, the function cubed or >> anything else just >> won't do. But the wave function itself is 100% deterministic so >> why involve probability >> at all? > > > > Of course the obvious answer to that is, "It's what we observe." Yes, The Born Rule is the only thing that fits experimental results, but I was talking about deriving it from first principles. John K Clark At first it was thought that it's the kind of randomness based on ignorance and some hidden variable would explain it. But then it turned out the hidden variable would have be non-local. -- 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.
