On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 4:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Yes, Zurek is hard to follow since he seems to use unusal terminology > sometimes. Attached is a good discussion of his method by Schlosshauer and > Fine which I find useful > Yes, Zurek is sometimes quite opaque, and I found the Schlosshauer-Fine discussion of Zurek's additional, hidden, assumptions useful. In their conclusions, they state: "We cannot derive probabilities from a theory that does not already contain some probabilistic concept; at some stage, we need to 'put probabilities in to get probabilities out'." This is perhaps my basic worry with Zurek, as with other attempts to derive the Born rule from the SWE. Zurek simply assumes that probabilities are relevant, and necessarily a property of the quantum state -- the amplitudes are then an obvious place for these probabilities to reside. Everything else then follows. But this is not a derivation without additional assumptions: where did the probability notion creep in? If you take the SWE straight, the amplitudes (coefficients) just go along for the ride and have no influence at all on the final state after measurement. I have always found this a worrying aspect of Everett. Bruce > -- 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/CAFxXSLSOcbOOQUO_zTed-eb7nXgU4c6R9zQWjpb%2BmL4u3%3Diotw%40mail.gmail.com.
