On 3/5/2020 3:07 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
What needs to be derived or postulated is a probability measure on Everett's multiple worlds. I agree that it can't be derived. But I don't see that it can't be postulated that at each split the branches are given a weight (or a multiplicity) so that over the ensemble of branches the Born rule is statistically supported, i.e. almost all sequences will satisfy the Born rule in the limit of long sequences.there is no "weight" that differentiates different branches.Then the Born rule is false, and the whole of QM is false.No, QM is not false. It is only Everett that is disconfirmed by experiment.Everett + mechanism + Gleason do solve the core of the problem.No. As discussed with Brent, the Born rule cannot be derived within the framework of Everettian QM. Gleason's theorem is useful only if you have a prior proof of the existence of a probability distribution. And you cannot achieve that within the Everettian context. Even postulating the Born rule ad hoc and imposing it by hand does not solve the problems with Everettian QM.
Brent -- 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/d58c69f9-0469-62c2-2132-6a5cabd540e1%40verizon.net.
