On 2/8/2020 6:53 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
But it is implicit, or even explicit in Bruno's model. It's also
consistent with Barbour's model.
It can be consistent with as many models as you like. It is simply not
Everettian QM. It is some ad hoc concoction that totally undermines
the point that was the basic attraction to Everett in the first place.
People like Carroll and Wallace laud Everett because they see it as
quantum mechanics in the raw -- the Schrodinger equation without
extraneous additional assumptions. You seem bent on adding all these
extraneous assumption, most of which are not even consistent with the
Schrodinger equation, and still claim that you are talking about the
same model.
I think Everett assumed Born's rule as a kind of weight attached to each
branch; so there was only one branch per result and the Born rule was
assumed. It is only later that the purists, who wanted to say MWI is
only the Schroedinger equation, have undertaken to prove the Born rule
follows from it with only some "obvious" additional assumption (like the
decision theoretic "proofs"). As far as I know, all of them have begged
the question in that their additional obvious assumption is no better
than just assuming the Born rule...which at least follows from Gleason's
theorem once you assume the theory returns a probability.
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5a242511-64b3-6dae-d974-bf5fc3614bde%40verizon.net.
