On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 5:04 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/22/2020 9:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > It is imposed in such a way as to agree with experiment, yes. But that is > how the Born rule was arrived at in the first instance. Consequently, MWI > is no better than Copenhagen in this respect. Gleason's theorem is only of > use if you first assume that there is a probability distribution -- that > the theory is probabilistic. But Everett is deterministic, not > probabilistic. > > > And Everett recognized the problem and tried to derive the Born rule. > His derivation was nothing more than the assumption of probability and the assumption of additivity. But I see as just overselling MWI. So it needs an axiom of probability > added to the deterministic evolution...no problem. The problem that > remains is decoherent diagonalization of the reduced density matrix is only > FAPP. Schlosshauer talks about doing a Schmidt decomposition to make it > strictly diagonal; but he recognizes that's just mathematical > transformation with not physical counterpart. > Yes. Many-worlds, far from being an advance, is just as arbitrary as Copenhagen, with the additional disadvantage of having to get rid of the surplus worlds. Decoherence doesn't really do a good job of that. 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSPH8f8aS6N3cO5Q44ifakSRGFAduijowGTkmPe9G-iHQ%40mail.gmail.com.
