> On 21 May 2018, at 03:35, [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] <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
By another concept: the mechanist account of the first person experience. The collapse still exist, but becomes phenomenological. That is a big conceptual difference. Everett go in the right (with respect to mechanism) direction, but missed that the Universal wave itself should still be explained also phenomenologically. The quantum Universal Dovetailer must be explained from a sum on all experiences brought by all (relative indexical) computations, making the physical science ultimately a branch of “machine’s psychology or theology” itself already branch of elementary arithmetic (in case you have read the original papers which started recursion theory). Bruno. > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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.
