On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 12:26:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/20/2018 5:00 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> 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. >
OK, incomplete. But if an observer makes the wrong assumption about an initial state, do you really want to say his/her wf is as representative of the system as one with a value that is more accurate? I agree that different observers will posit different wf's, but I balk at the (Baysian) idea that all are equally representative of the system. AG > > > >> 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? > I think both CI and MWI consider the wf real, and it's just a formality that the latter sees no "collapse". Rather, instead of all amplitudes but one converging to zero, they all evolve to unity in different worlds -- a sort-of collapse by another name. 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.
