> On 31 Jul 2018, at 22:02, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 7/31/2018 9:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 31 Jul 2018, at 02:57, Brent Meeker <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/30/2018 4:11 PM, John Clark wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> A axiom is supposed to be simple and self evidently true, the Born rule >>>> is neither; and it wasn't derived from first principles >>> >>> ?? You think matix mechanics was "derived from first principles"?? What >>> "first principles"? Have you gone platonic on us? >>> >>>> it was picked for reasons that were were empirical and practical, for some >>>> strange reason the damn thing works. >>> >>> Well, maybe it works because the Born rule is the only consistent way to >>> put a probability measure on Hilbert space. Born just inuitited the rule >>> (and actually got it wrong and corrected it in a footnote); but Gleason >>> proved it in 1957. So the Born rule comes a lot closer to being "derived >>> from first principles" than does Schroedinger's equation or matrix >>> mechanics. >> >> >> Yes. But we can suspect that Everett needs a form of mechanism, and with >> Church thesis, along with “yes doctor” that makes mandatory to derive matrix >> mechanics from first principle, like the FPI perhaps, and certainly >> something like at least one universal machinery, like elementary arithmetic >> or the combinators. >> >> >> >>> >>> The catch is that Born had assume a probability interpretation; which >>> nobody liked at the time because they could only think of probability as >>> ignorance about ensembles and there were no ensembles...until Dewitt. >> >> I like very much Dewitt, but Dewitt is the one who better understood Everett >> (after mocking him if I remember well). > > I was referring to the fact that it was Dewitt who invented the > mulitple-world interpretation. Everett called it "the relative state" > interpretation, and didn't consider multiple worlds.
Everett was asked by its publisher to not use the expression “parallel universes”, "many-worlds”, and said, according to some biographer, that he regretted this. Personally I prefer “relative sate”, but all this just allude to one and the same theory: QM-without-collapse. > >> >> >> >>> >>>> Also, the square of the absolute value of the complex wave produces a >>>> probability which collapses into a certainty when a observation is made, >>>> but the mathematics can't say when that happens because it doesn't say >>>> what a observation is. >>> >>> Mathematics never includes the interpretation that allows you to apply it. >> >> That is wrong. Indeed Gödel’s incompleteness is already a case where >> mathematics includes interpretations of mathematical theories (set of >> beliefs). > > Interpreting arithmetical equations as sets of beliefs is already > interpretation. With mechanism, that is the same as your consciousness: it is an interpretation of the set of arithmetical semi-computable relations implemented by your brain relatively to computations in arithmetic. Adding a universe or a god, other than arithmetic or combinators cannot work, as a universal machine cannot distinguish a physical and an arithmetical reality (except experimentally). You could say that intepretating schroedinger equation as a propagating wave is already an interpretation. In that sense, anything (except consciousness) is an interpretation. That is what universal machine do: interpreting. I will click on some button, and my computer will interpret it as an invitation to send this mail. Bruno > > Brent > >> Like Everett embeds the physicists in physics, mathematical logic embeds the >> mathematician in mathematics, and if mechanism is correct, there is not much >> choice left in the matter. >> >> 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] >> <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] > <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.
