On 2/14/2020 1:34 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com <mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

        On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

            Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are
            incompatible. I don't understand his argument, no doubt
my failing.

        I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born
        rule has to stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE
        and can't be derived from the linear evolution.  Somehow a
        probability has to be introduced.  Once there is a probability
        measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem that the
        only consistent measure is the Born rule.

        Brent


    I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one
    CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether
    one affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an
    ensemble generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot
    derive Born's rule using a one-world theory, it would seem
    impossible to do so with many-worlds, since in operational terms
    -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are
    indistinguishable.  AG


That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements are generated, and most will give different values for the probabilities. For the observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell them that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.

Since it's an interpretation, not a theory, then there's nothing to tell us we're getting the wrong answer either.  We only think "answers" are wrong if they aren't replicated.

Brent


Bruce

            ISTM that whether we affirm one world or many worlds, all
            we can ever measure is what observe in this world, and it
            is from this world that we generate an ensemble after
            many trials from which to observe and affirm Born's rule.
            What am I missing, if anything? TIA, AG

--
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 <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRkZEYAO6X%3DjPir8B%3DHVB6ddjDudRhY1-fPKtu%3DAK%3DD7w%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRkZEYAO6X%3DjPir8B%3DHVB6ddjDudRhY1-fPKtu%3DAK%3DD7w%40mail.gmail.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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0a4f19e4-3391-71cf-160e-3d7dd4104a53%40verizon.net.

Reply via email to