On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:35:33 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 12:26:38 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> 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. >> > > 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 >
I mean that the Bird's Eye Observer will know everything that each individual observer knows, and will construct the most representative wf for the system. One then applies the SWE to that wf, We can argue about what wf is best to use, but I think one needs a measurement in order to apply the projection operator. And like your example of stars being projected onto the celestial sphere, the loss of information is apparently "caused" by the mathematical model, not by a physical process. 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.
