On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 04:49:36PM -0500, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 4:42 PM Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So even though there is 1 subset inthe spin up branch, and 2 in the spin > down branch, each subset in the spin down branch has half the measure of > the single branch in the spin up branch. > > > OK, but that's pretty much what I was doing, except that I use the word " > thickness" instead of "measure". >
Sounds like it. Our difference, I think, is that we assigned different meanings to the term "branch counting". So when I hear "You can't get the Born rule from branch counting", to me that means you can't get the complex measure from simple considerations of dividing up sets of "descriptions" (naively thought of as bit strings) and counting their elements. I had quite a long discussion with Bruce Kellett about this some time back. We ended in an impasse. There's another fly in the ointment - in my book, I stated that complex measures were the most general type of measure, but it aint so. In fact a quaternionic measure seems to fit the bill: arxiv:hep-th/0110253v2 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders [email protected] 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ZyvrBLvTEiRQxrv8%40zen.
