On 5/20/2018 6:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
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. AGIf 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
But quantum Bayesian is different. It regards the wf as just a representation of what one knows about the system. So the "collapse" of wf is not problematic. It happens when you get new information and you adjust your knowledge of the system and write down a new different wf.
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.
