On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 10:53:38 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/20/2018 3:35 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > Exactly. The quantum Bayesian take this view >> > > How does "Baysian" fit into this picture? Can't one interpret the SWE as a > representation of what we know about a system, without being a Baysian? AG > > >> and consider Schroedinger's equation also as a personal book keeping >> device of what one knows about a system and then the Born rule and >> projection operators fit neatly into the scheme of updating one's personal >> knowledge. >> > > I would delete "personal" from your comment. We're referring to the > knowledge of any observer. AG > > > No. That's whole point of it being Bayesian. The SWE is conceived as > relative to one's personal information. So if you know the electron was > prepared in UP polarization and I don't, we will write down different > states and when it goes through an SG measuring UP, you won't change your > representation, but I will. >
Then you will use an incorrect SWE. I assume there's a correct one based on objective information about the preparation state of any system. I am not a Baysian. AG > If you start to regard it as "objective" and "real" you fall back in to > the problems that led to MWI. > How so? AG > > 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.
