On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 05:14:41PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> If there are probabilities attached to the branches, then Gleason's theorem
> shows that the probabilities must satisfy the Born rule. So I don't seen any
> inconsistency in simply saying they are probabilities of measurement results,
> that's Copenhagen. But if they are probabilities of results that implies that
> some things happen and others don't...other wise what does "probability" mean
> and what use is it as an empirical concept? That brings back the original
> problem of CI, where and how is this happening defined?
>
Doesn't this just hinge on what I call in my book the
semantic-syntactic distinction, aka the 1-3 distinction (long debates
between Bruno and JC on this), or the subjective-objective
distinction, or even discrete-continuous distinction.
Without this cut, the very concept of information makes no sense, and
without information, Darwinian evolution doesn't happen.
ISTM, no-collapse QM is a continuous theory, it lacks this cut, which
must be added in as an extra axiom.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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/20220507024952.GA2667%40zen.
