On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:53 AM Jesse Mazer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:01 PM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Brent Meeker <[email protected]> Wrote: >> >> *> Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger equation. But >>> it's part of the application of the Schroedinger equation. It's not in the >>> equation itself. * >> >> >> > I don't know what you mean by that. >> >> *> It's the projection postulate in the Copenhagen interpretation that >>> applies the Born rule. In MWI it's the Born rule plus some kind of >>> self-locating uncertainty to allow for the probabilistic observations. So >>> those are things not in the Schroedinger equation.* >> >> >> I don't know how you figure that. It has been mathematically proven that >> the Born rule is the only way to get probabilities out of Schrodinger's >> equation such that all the probabilities add up to 1. And Schrodinger says >> an electron wave can be in any location, and in a camera/electron wave a >> camera will observe the electron being in every location, and in a Brent >> Meeker/camera/electron wave there will be a Brent Meeker for every camera >> that sees an electron in every location. >> >> *> No, you can't observe the Born rule to be true any more (or less) than >>> you can observe Schroedinger's equation to be true.* >> >> >> Nonsense! Every quantum physicist alive believes the Born rule is valid >> and they use it every day, and the reason they're so confident is because >> the Born rule has always conform with observations and all empirical tests >> , so it doesn't need a seal of approval from a theory for us to think it's >> true, but a theory may need a seal of approval from the Born Rule to >> convince us that a theory is true. That's because observation always >> outranks theory. >> > > But one of the big selling points of the MWI is to give some sort of > objective picture of reality in which "measurements" have no distinguished > role, but are simply treated using the usual rules of quantum interactions. > At one time, that might have been a point on which to prefer MWI over Bohr's version of the CI, but that is no longer true. Modern collapse theories do not have to distinguish particular "measurement" events, and do not have to assume a classical superstructure . In modern fGRW, for example, everything can be treated as quantum, and the theory is completely objective. fGRW has the added advantage that it is an inherently stochastic theory. Probability is treated as a primitive notion that is not based on anything else. MWI struggles with the concept of probability, and while it has to reject a frequentist basis for probability, it cannot really supply anything else. Self-locating uncertainty does not, in itself, serve to define probability. You have to have some notion of a random selection from a set, and that is not available in either the Schrodinger equation or in self-locating uncertainty. If you have to say "OK, I believe in the MWI plus Born rule for > measurements" with there being no dynamical definition of what qualifies as > a measurement, where the moments we call 'measurements' are just something > we feed into the theory on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis, then this claim > to objectivity is lost and it's not clear what theoretical appeal it has > over the Copenhagen interpretation. > > Personally I still lean towards some version of the MWI being true mainly > because you can come up with a toy model with MWI-style splitting that > deals with Bell style experiments in a way that preserves locality > No you can't. > but doesn't require hidden variables (see > https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/1/87/htm ) but I see it as a sort of > work in progress rather than a complete interpretation. > They set up a contrast between realism and locality. This is a false contrast, since Bell's theorem has nothing to do with any concept of realism. Bell's concern was to show that the results of quantum mechanics violate the assumption of locality -- there is no other escape. So called "Einsteinian realism" has no role in Bell's argument. If you think that MWI provides a simple local explanation of the violation of Bell inequalities, then give the argument here -- and not in terms of endless links to nonsense papers. 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/CAFxXSLQgNOhqY1xdk_OPOK4hq3U%3DaCZBp3pbuWX6M9MsFFx-FQ%40mail.gmail.com.
