You can't prove it's false, but Jacques Mallah claimed to prove that you
can't /derive/ it from QM without it ("The Many Computations
Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", 2007). It has to be a separate
postulate, because he considers some different rules for assigning
probability. These are experimentally disproven, but their existence
implies that Born's rule is not logically entailed. His example avoids
Gleason's theorem, because QM minus Born doesn't imply that observations
across different worlds necessarily satisfy the probability axioms.
Brent
On 9/8/2019 11:39 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 10:10 AM Lawrence Crowell
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> I think the Born rule should likely be proven, proven to be false,
or shown to be unprovable, outside the context of any interpretation.
How could the Born rule be proven to be false, isn't the experimental
evidence in its favor as strong or stronger than just about anything
in science?
John K Clark
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2otQnCR8m0mMQow9Ot_AHy0hPGM8DPQNyoZJYZWT459Q%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2otQnCR8m0mMQow9Ot_AHy0hPGM8DPQNyoZJYZWT459Q%40mail.gmail.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/313c0c20-981e-cd32-20fd-e768e2ea70f2%40verizon.net.
