> On 30 Jul 2018, at 22:27, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On 7/30/2018 9:58 AM, John Clark wrote: >> > Forget collapse. >> Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because they believe in the >> "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation and are only interested in >> predicting how far to the right a indicator needle on a meter moves in a >> particular experiment. But for some of us that feels unsatisfying and would >> like to have a deeper understanding about what's going on at the quantum >> level and wonder why there is nothing in the mathematics that says anything >> about a wave collapsing. >> > > That's not true. "The mathematics" originally included the Born rule as part > of the axiomatic structure of QM.
In the usual QM, yes. But this use a vague notion of observer, and a seemingly forbidden process, a projection (a Kestrel!), I mean forbidden if we apply the wave to the couple observer-particle. > >> Most of all they want to know what exactly is a "measurement" and why it so >> mysterious. >> > > The problem with the Born rule was that its application was ambiguous: Ah! Exactly. > Where was the Heisenberg cut? Why was "the needle basis" preferred? But > decoherence theory has given answers (at least partially) to those questions. > Given those answers, one can just replace "collapse" with "discard", i.e. > discard all the predicted possible results except the one observed. Is there > really any difference between saying those other predictions of the wf are in > orthogonal, inaccessible "worlds" and saying they just didn't happen. That > seems to be Omnes approach. He writes, "Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic > theory, so it only predicts probabilities.” OK, but the honest, and perhaps naive inquirer would like to have an idea about what are those probabilities about, and where they come from. Now, the computationalists expected exactly that kind of probabilities, on the computations, as the “step 3”, but mainly the “step 4”, i.e. the unawareness of the basic computation “time” (the number of steps in the universal dovetailing or the length of the proof of a sigma_1 sentence), It is all in head of the universal machine! The existence of the universal machine is assured by Robinson Arithmetic, or the combinator theory, as can been proved by all Löbian combinators. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
