> On 12 Feb 2020, at 00:45, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 2/11/2020 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 7 Feb 2020, at 18:09, Lawrence Crowell >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> MWI is not that bad. All quantum interpretations have some negative >>> qualities. I think all quantum interpretations are auxiliary postulates not >>> provable in QM. >> >> I think, with some other, that SWE = MWI. That is so true that the founders >> have added the reduction of the wave postulate to avoid the MWI. I would say >> that the MWI is a theorem of QM, and that by adding the wave collapse, the >> theory theory is either inconsistent, or incomplete, but no working >> completion has ever been able to really suppress the superposition (aka many >> histories/worlds/dreams). > > You are so smitten by the SWE you avoid the fact that the Born rule and > collapse of the wf are also axioms of QM.
That is an object of debate. You have cited Gleason theorem in a relevant about this. > The problem with axioms is they can prove anything you like. Not at all. Once the axioms are chosen, you need to accept its consequences, or reject them. I guess you mean we can chose the axiom we want, and that is true, but usually we choose the axioms for many reason, mainly around elegance and range of explanation. > MWI is also inconsistent and incomplete. It is metaphysically inconsistent, but not inconsistent or the SWE is inconsistent. The MWI is just QM (I mean SWE + Tensor products) taken literally. > It doesn't explain when a measurement has been made. Yes, mechanism explains this though, and Everett QM confirms that explanation, but Everett QM is metaphysically inconsistent, like any actual physical theories, when we assume mechanism. > It doesn't solve the basis problem, I have never seen any basis problem. It is entirely explained. By the relative local and partial tracing of the many-body state, made by self-aware subsystems. You can write the universal wave in any base, and then get the explanation of why some base becomes more important than others in the relative way. Same situation in Mechanism, where the choice of the base-universal machinery can be arbitrary, but then some universal machine get more important relatively to some others. > derive the Born rule, Gleason theorem, or graham-Destouche-février quantum analyses of the frequency operator. Some words remains to be done, but could be premature in the Mechanist frame, where we need the self-reference logic to distinguish quanta from qualia. > or explain why FAPP is close enough for the density matrix. I think this come simply from the laws of big numbers, and the invariance of the first person in the web of all histories associated to all computation in arithmetic. Bruno > > Brent > >> >> Then, it is a (not completely trivial) theorem in arithmetic that all >> computations exist and have a complex relative measure with each other. I >> giot the MWI “interpretation" of arithmetic well before I realise that the >> physicists were already there. All computations with oracles exist in the >> internal limit if the first person views associated with any universal >> number in arithmetic. >> (I recall that a number u is universal if phi_u(<x, y>) = phi_x(y). I say >> that u emulates x on y. Thanks to Kleene’s predicate, this can be translated >> in the language of arithmetic (classical logic + the symbols s, 0, + and *), >> and the existence of computations is satisfied in all models of Robinson >> Arithmetic (a very weak arithmetic accepted even by the ultra-finitists). >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >>> -- >>> 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/3cd723e6-fc4a-42f2-813d-ceb1302852ac%40googlegroups.com. > > > -- > 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/5e852733-4092-92c7-bffa-3c1f38cc7ad7%40verizon.net. -- 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/0650FFCA-539A-4273-84E3-1D3A813E6177%40ulb.ac.be.
