On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 9:47 AM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/15/2024 8:28 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > > You need to assume something like the Kolmogorov axioms of > probability anyway, but these are by and large definitional. > > For the rest, the Gleason theorem really does the heavy lifting. > > > But one somehow has to relate the amplitudes of the wave function basis > vectors > to the probabilities. And since the Schrodinger equation is deterministic, > introducing a probability interpretation is problematic. > > > I never followed that line of argument. I know you've raised this > multiple times over the years, but it made little sense to me. > > For example - in classical statistical physics, the connection between > entropy and the classical microstate is statistical in nature. The > assumed deterministic nature of classical microphysics does not > prevent a probabilistic interpretation of the macrophysics. > > It does not prevent a probabilistic interpretation, but it does not give one either. You have assumed statistical physics, which introduces a large dose of probability theory. That does not come from the deterministic theory -- you have to introduce it from elsewhere. So with quantum mechanics. The wave function, being deterministic, does not have a probabilistic interpretation until you introduce one from elsewhere. Bruce -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLT9r_fHWuN3f4GNEtJ%2BHJNE%3DSY1komfDz619rrSEEHF1g%40mail.gmail.com.
