On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:21:59 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 2:04 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Exactly what axiom would that be? It can't be the Born rule because 
>>> that is not an axiom, that is an experimentaly derived fact.
>From what data? Only by counting the various outcomes in a particular 
world, this one or any other. But there's no assurance based on the SE and 
your interpretation of it, that guarantees an ensemble of measurements in 
ANY world. You need something in addition; call it what you like.  AG 

>> *> The axiom that additional trials in this world,*
> No world can have more than one trial because if many worlds is correct 
> each trial splits  a world.  

Then no frequentist approach is possible in ANY WORLD and Born's rule 
cannot be experimental verified or inferred! AG

*> result in additional outcomes in the SAME OTHER worlds.*

> I don't understand this axiom at all but no matter;  I don't see why ANY 
> additional axiom is needed as long as you have the Schrodinger equation and 
> the Born rule.  

You can only use Born's rule in any world where an ensemble of measurements 
occurs. But you've admitted that no such ensemble can exist in any world. 
Case closed.  AG 

> > Only if those outcomes are in the same other world, can you apply a 
>> frequentist approach to experimentally infer Born's rule. 
> There is no need to get in into philosophy at all to infer the Born rule 
> because the  Born rule just works.
>   John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> nbt
> e

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 

Reply via email to