On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:37 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

> On 08-05-2022 05:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > It is when you take the SE to imply that all possible outcomes exist
> > on each trial. That gives all outcomes equal status.
> All outcomes can exist without these being equally likely. One can make
> models based on more branches for certain outcomes, but these are just
> models that may not be correct.

Such models are certainly inconsistent with the SE. So if your concern is
that the SE does not contain provision for a collapse, then you should
doubt other theories that violate the SE. You can't have it both ways: you
can't reject collapse models because they violate the SE and then embrace
other models that also violate the SE. Either the SE is
universally correct, or it is not.

> What matters is that such models can be
> formulated in a mathematically consistent way, which demonstrates that
> there is n o contradiction. The physical plausibility of such models is
> another issue.

This has been discussed. To allow for real number probabilities, the number
of branches on each split must be infinite. The measure problem for
infinite numbers of branches has not been solved. It is unlikely that any
consistent measure over infinite numbers of branches can be defined. So
this idea is probably a non-starter. At least other models have a
reasonable chance of success.


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