On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 11:53:48 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > 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 >
I am uncertain about this. If the Born rule were proven in an airtight way here this would have been one of the biggest developments in recent decades. I have yet to read this, so I can't form my own assessment of it. LC -- 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/492018a0-f792-4610-9507-1775147ca9fe%40googlegroups.com.
