On 5/20/2018 5:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
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
It's not a matter of being incorrect, just incomplete. And there may be
several attributes of a system such that different observers are
ignorant of the values of different attributes and so they all write
down different initial states and evolve different wave functions.
If you start to regard it as "objective" and "real" you fall back
in to the problems that led to MWI.
When does the "real" wave function collapse? And what makes it collapse?
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.
