On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 8:45:22 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 4:20:46 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/ >>> >> >> >> >> Many Worlds is where people go to escape from one world of >> quantum-stochastic processes. They are like vampires, but instead of >> running away from sunbeams, are running away from probabilities. >> >> @philipthrift >> > > This assessment is not entirely fair. Carroll and Sebens have a paper on > how supposedly the Born rule can be derived from MWI I have yet to read > their paper, but given the newsiness of this I might get to it. One > advantage that MWI does have is that it splits the world as a sort of > quantum frame dragging that is nonlocal. This nonlocal property might be > useful for working with quantum gravity, > > I worked a proof of a theorem, which may not be complete unfortunately, > where the two sets of quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic and > those that are ψ-ontological are not decidable. There is no decision > procedure which can prove QM holds either way. The proof is set with > nonlocal hidden variables over the projective rays of the state space. In > effect there is an uncertainty in whether the hidden variables localize > extant quantities, say with ψ-ontology, or whether this localization is > the generation of information in a local context from quantum nonlocality > that is not extant, such as with ψ-epistemology. Quantum interprertations > are then auxiliary physical axioms or postulates. MWI and within the > framework of what Carrol and Sebens has done this is a ψ-ontology, and > this defines the Born rule. If I am right the degree of ψ-epistemontic > nature is mixed. So the intriguing question we can address is the nature of > the Born rule and its tie into the auxiliary postulates of quantum > interpretations. Can a similar demonstration be made for the Born rule > within QuBism, which is what might be called the dialectic opposite of MWI? > > To take MWI as something literal, as opposed to maybe a working system to > understand QM foundations, is maybe taking things too far. However, it is a > part of some open questions concerning the fundamentals of QM. If MWI, > and more generally postulates of quantum interpretations, are connected to > the Born rule it makes for some interesting things to think about. > > LC >
QBism is not the dialectical opposite of MWI. This is: https://twitter.com/DowkerFay/status/1110683583570759680 @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/f5afc3ae-63c6-44ee-9775-999cf039da23%40googlegroups.com.
