Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/16/2022 4:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:03:55 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:



    On 4/16/2022 2:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:44:09 PM UTC-6
    meeke...@gmail.com wrote:



        On 4/16/2022 8:34 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

            Of course I favour the first version of the argument,
            using the many-world formulation of collapse, to avoid
            the "God plays dice" nightmare.

            Why this fear of true randomness?  We have all kinds of
            classical randomness we just attributed to "historical
            accident".  Would it really make any difference it were
            due to inherent quantum randomness?  Albrect and
            Phillips have made an argument that there is quantum
            randomness even nominally classical dynamics.
            https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3


        True randomness implies *unintelligibility*; that is, no
        existing physical process for *causing *the results of
        measurements. AG

        "It happened at random in accordance with a Poisson process
        with rate parameter 0.123" seems perfectly intelligible to
        me.  There is a physical description of the system with
        allows you to predict that, including the value of the rate
        parameter.  It only differs from deterministic physics in
        that it doesn't say when the event happens.

        I always wonder if people who have this dogmatic rejection of
        randomness understand that quantum randomness is very
        narrow.  Planck's constant is very small and it introduces
        randomness, but with a definite distribution and on certain
        variables. It's not "anything can happen" as it seems some
        people fear.

        Brent


    Every single trial is unintelligible. AG

    I find that remark unintelligble.  I don't think "intelligble"
    means what you think it means.

    Brent


It means there exists no definable physical process to account for the 
outcome of a single trial. AG

That's what is usually called "non-deterministic".  "Unintelligble" 
means not understandable or incomprehensible.

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2f64191e-5210-b97a-2bd7-f7a304422c8d%40gmail.com.