> On 22 Feb 2020, at 23:10, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 7:17 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > On 2/21/2020 10:31 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 4:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> 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. > > But isn't that just a matter of it's proponents overselling it. If you say, > well it's a probabilistic theory, then that the Born rule is the way to get a > probability is fairly compelling. > > Many-world proponents certainly oversell Everett. I have not seen anybody > admit openly that there is a problem with getting probability into a > deterministic theory
That is what the purely mechanist (or sigma_1 arithmetic) explanation from self-duplication clarify the best. The self-duplication (à la WM) does explain the origin of probabilities in deterministic frame. > so it just has to be put in by hand. If, as you say, people admit that what > they really want is a probabilistic theory, even if they have to force it in > by hand, then at least some of the arguments for the Born rule make sense. > But if you insist that your theory is pure SWE/Everett, then all attempts at > deriving the Born rule from this deterministic position fail. It looks like you confuse first person description, which can be deterministic (without any probability), and first person description, where the observers do verify their particular “self-localisation” outcome. > > The arguments that I have developed here, based on Kent's insight, take > Many-worlds at face value. Then the theory is clearly incoherent, or at least > incompatible with observation. However, if you take a classical deterministic > theory, such as Bruno's WM-duplication thought experiment, then there is no > way you can sensibly interpret such a theory probabilistically. It is the experiences obtained which cannot avoid the probabilities. That is the cute part: we get 1p unavoidable probabilities from a 3p purely deterministic picture. Bruno > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSBAiF0P%2BLUAZSpS4m2QabhjKUy7jLsEXhwQ6Esaw%3DiGQ%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSBAiF0P%2BLUAZSpS4m2QabhjKUy7jLsEXhwQ6Esaw%3DiGQ%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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/464B4858-87E2-49BE-A2AA-65743C2D073B%40ulb.ac.be.
