On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 6:00:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 7 Sep 2019, at 17:17, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 9:25:59 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 4:09:27 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> *>> Sean Carroll is on a nationwide speaking tour now evangelizing Many >>>> Worlds. What is the predictive power of Many Worlds?* >>>> >>>> > None, unless someone can figure out how to derive Born's rule from >>>> it...which I think is impossible. >>>> >>> >>> Many Worlds predicts that the best any observer will be able to do is >>> make probabilistic predictions, and Gleason's theorem says that in 3 >>> spatial dimensions only the square of Schrodinger's wave (the Born rule), >>> and not the cube or anything else, can yield a probability without >>> inconsistencies. >>> >>> John K Clark >>> >> >> Gleason's theorem is sort of a special case of Born rule for the case an >> operator is the unit operator. There is an interesting chase after the Born >> rule, and some people do think that certain quantum interpretations give >> the added axiomatic "boost" necessary to prove that. I am agnostic about >> those claims. If this does turn out to be the case I would give the best >> bet to either MWI or QuBism. >> >> LC >> > > > > > If the best bet is either MWI or QuBism then theoretical physics is > indeed doomed. > > > Yes. But theoretical physics is not doomed, only physicalism, or the idea > that physics is the fundamental science. As such it is not doomed, but > explain by something non physical, simpler, even if transcendent. > > Bruno > > > I wrote this not with the expectation that the Born rule will be proven within either of these interpretations. I think the Born rule should likely be proven, proven to be false, or shown to be unprovable, outside the context of any interpretation. My statement is just that if it is proven within the context of an interpretation these two might have the greatest plausibility.
LC > > > > @philipthrift > > > > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/710c8709-0a08-454d-930c-8a4f7a04590a%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/710c8709-0a08-454d-930c-8a4f7a04590a%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c8445d1b-ebee-4751-b8eb-a31e64c7c596%40googlegroups.com.
