On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 7:57:43 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 8/8/2018 12:41 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 5:33:57 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 4:54:28 PM UTC-5, [email protected] >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 10:16:17 PM UTC, [email protected] >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> As long as the universe is not resolved into individual subsystems *(that >>>> is, no tensor decomposition of the WF)*, there is no measurement >>>> problem. >>>> >>>> IMO, highly doubtful, or minimally outside the domain of quantum theory >>>> where there is such a thing as measurements, and thus the dualism being >>>> denied as the conceptual solution of the measurement problem. ( >>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0312059.pdf, page 8, bold added). AG >>>> >>> >>> He does say that decoherence theory doesn't solve the measurement >>> problem, yet he attributes it to decomposing the universe into individual >>> subsystems. Why would the decomposition have that result? Am I misreading >>> his position? AG >>> >> > Why would decomposition have* what* result? The result of "decomposing > the universe into individual subsystems"? The result of "not solving the > measurement problem"? >
*See 2nd paragraph, page 8, A. Resolution into subsystems. AG* Decoherence doesn't solve the measurement problem because it doesn't quantify the probability; it doesn't even show why there is a probability measure. If you can show that there is a probability measure, then Gleason's theorem tells you that it must be the Born rule. 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.
