> On 4/28/2022 10:45 AM, John Clark 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.
> If I take some experimental result as granted, then it is an axiom, in my 
system. If you think we need to be more subtle, I propose that we adopt 
some qualitative principle (e.g., see below) as a practical assessment 
rather than as a formal assumption, and so we introduce "FAPP" (corrected 
as "for a practical purpose"). In my proposal I adopt "workability of QM".

 On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 12:07:08 AM UTC+3 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

> It was a guess by Born.  If you want a measure on Hilbert space that 
> satisfies Kolmogrov's axioms of probability it must be Born's rule.  The 
> axiom could be, "QM measurement results are probabilistic."
We also need some additional assumption, For Gleason, it was 
"non-contextuality of measurements". I have seen others.

I think that it is enough to assume "equal measures imply equal 
probabilities", but I do not remember seeing this claim before. (I am 
unsure about that.)

George K.

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