On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 9:10:09 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > 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]> 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 > > >> >> >>
My statement is just that if it is proven within the context of an interpretation these two might have the greatest plausibility. But "We provide a derivation of the Born Rule in the context of the Everett (ManyWorlds) approach to quantum mechanics." https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.7907.pdf So what is the issue? @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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5cff54d0-62c2-4820-8303-0c46187a5d15%40googlegroups.com.
