On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 11:44:51 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > 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 >
The MWI and this path integral interpretation are both ψ-ontic and are thus not opposite. 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/fe4b02a2-9fcb-4126-b2ad-fb9982f20fc1%40googlegroups.com.
