On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 5:18:50 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 13 Sep 2019, at 00:44, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > I agree. I would even add that with Feynman path formalism, the reduction > of the wave packet does no more make sense. Feynman said it in his little > book on light: he consider the Wave reduction as a confusion and appeal to > magic (footnote at the end of the second chapter). > > Bruno >
Not for those of us who watch horseraces! Applied to QM, the wf becomes irrelevant when the measurement occurs. Wave packet reduction, by which I assume you mean "collapse", is nothing more than a bookkeeping device. AG > > > > > 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] <javascript:>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fe4b02a2-9fcb-4126-b2ad-fb9982f20fc1%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fe4b02a2-9fcb-4126-b2ad-fb9982f20fc1%40googlegroups.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/10ffd66d-76ce-474b-a4e4-4f858f0e5153%40googlegroups.com.
