Re: Deriving the Born Rule

> On 26 Jun 2020, at 21:35, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 6/25/2020 11:10 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: With mechanism it is a bit hard to not see the physical multiverse >>> >>> Nobody sees the physical multiverse. It's as much a theoretical construct >>> as

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On 6/25/2020 11:10 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: With mechanism it is a bit hard to not see the physical multiverse Nobody sees the physical multiverse.  It's as much a theoretical construct as arithmetic is. Nobody sees the moon. It is a theoretical construct, even if a large part of the

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

> On 18 May 2020, at 21:38, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 5/18/2020 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 17 May 2020, at 20:59, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5/17/2020 3:31 AM,

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 6:29:04 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 10:57 PM Lawrence Crowell < > goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 12:12:28 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5/17/2020 6:20 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On Sunday, May

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:47 PM smitra wrote: > On 19-05-2020 03:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:16 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > > wrote: > >> > >> But even if you're right (and I think you are) does that affect the > >> MWI. In an Everett+Born theory there

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 7:02:58 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 9:59 AM Alan Grayson > wrote: > >> On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 5:29:04 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> >>> I am sorry if I have given the impression that I thought that objective >>> probabilities were possible

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On 19-05-2020 03:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:16 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 5/18/2020 4:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I am sorry if I have given the impression that I thought that objective probabilities were possible only with frequentism. I

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:16 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 5/18/2020 4:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > I am sorry if I have given the impression that I thought that objective > probabilities were possible only with frequentism. I thought

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On 5/18/2020 4:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 10:57 PM Lawrence Crowell > wrote: On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 12:12:28 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 5/17/2020 6:20 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, May 17,

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 9:59 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 5:29:04 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> >> I am sorry if I have given the impression that I thought that objective >> probabilities were possible only with frequentism. I thought I had made it >> clear that frequentism

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 5:29:04 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 10:57 PM Lawrence Crowell < > goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 12:12:28 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5/17/2020 6:20 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On Sunday,

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 10:57 PM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 12:12:28 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 5/17/2020 6:20 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 1:57:19 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, May

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On 5/18/2020 4:27 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: Probability and statistics are in part an empirical subject. This is not pure mathematics, and it is one reason why there is no single foundation. It would be as if linear algebra or any area of mathematics had two competing axiomatic foundation.

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On 5/18/2020 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 May 2020, at 20:59, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 5/17/2020 3:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 May 2020, at 11:39, 'scerir' via Everything List

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

<> “One may call these uncertainties [i.e. the Born probabilities] objective, in that they are simply a consequence of the fact that we describe the experiment in terms of classical physics; they do not depend in detail on the observer. One may call them subjective, in that they reflect our

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 12:12:28 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/17/2020 6:20 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 1:57:19 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:04 PM Lawrence Crowell < >> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> There is nothing

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 6:27:34 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > >> > Probability and statistics are in part an empirical subject. This is not > pure mathematics, and it is one reason why there is no single foundation. > It would be as if linear algebra or any area of mathematics had

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 9:27 PM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 9:06:12 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:20 AM Lawrence Crowell < >> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Objective probabilities are frequentism.

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 9:06:12 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:20 AM Lawrence Crowell < > goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 1:57:19 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:04 PM Lawrence Crowell < >>>

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

> On 17 May 2020, at 20:59, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 5/17/2020 3:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 17 May 2020, at 11:39, 'scerir' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> I vaguely remember that von Weizsaecker

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 8:20:01 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > > However, all this talk of probability theory may itself be wrong. Quantum > mechanics derives probabilities or distributions or spectra, but it really > is a theory of amplitudes or the density matrix. The

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 4:32:13 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 5:18 AM smitra > > wrote: > >> >> Deriving the Born rule within the context of QM seems to me a rather >> futile effort as you still have the formalism of QM itself that is then >> unexplained. So, I think

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On 18-05-2020 00:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 5:18 AM smitra wrote: Deriving the Born rule within the context of QM seems to me a rather futile effort as you still have the formalism of QM itself that is then unexplained. So, I think one has to tackle QM itself. It seems

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On 5/17/2020 6:20 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 1:57:19 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:04 PM Lawrence Crowell > wrote: There is nothing wrong formally with what you argue. I would though say this is not entirely the Born

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:20 AM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 1:57:19 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:04 PM Lawrence Crowell < >> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> There is nothing wrong formally with what

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 1:57:19 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:04 PM Lawrence Crowell < > goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> There is nothing wrong formally with what you argue. I would though say >> this is not entirely the Born rule. The Born rule connects

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 5:18 AM smitra wrote: > > Deriving the Born rule within the context of QM seems to me a rather > futile effort as you still have the formalism of QM itself that is then > unexplained. So, I think one has to tackle QM itself. It seems t me > quite plausible that QM gives

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On 17-05-2020 08:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:04 PM Lawrence Crowell wrote: There is nothing wrong formally with what you argue. I would though say this is not entirely the Born rule. The Born rule connects eigenvalues with the probabilities of a wave function. For

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On 5/17/2020 3:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 May 2020, at 11:39, 'scerir' via Everything List > wrote: I vaguely remember that von Weizsaecker wrote (in 'Zeit und Wissen') that probability is 'the expectation value of the relative frequency'.

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

> On 17 May 2020, at 11:39, 'scerir' via Everything List > wrote: > > I vaguely remember that von Weizsaecker wrote (in 'Zeit und Wissen') that > probability is 'the expectation value of the relative frequency'. > > That is the frequency approach to probability. Strictly speaking it is

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

I vaguely remember that von Weizsaecker wrote (in 'Zeit und Wissen') that probability is 'the expectation value of the relative frequency'. > Bruce wrote: > > It is this subjectivity, and appeal to Bayesianism, that I reject for QM. > I consider probabilities to be intrinsic properties --

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 1:57:19 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:04 PM Lawrence Crowell < > goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> There is nothing wrong formally with what you argue. I would though say >> this is not entirely the Born rule. The Born rule connects

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:04 PM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is nothing wrong formally with what you argue. I would though say > this is not entirely the Born rule. The Born rule connects eigenvalues with > the probabilities of a wave function. For quantum

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

There is nothing wrong formally with what you argue. I would though say this is not entirely the Born rule. The Born rule connects eigenvalues with the probabilities of a wave function. For quantum state amplitudes a_i in a superposition ψ = sum_ia_iφ_i with φ*_jφ_i = δ_{ij} the spectrum of an

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

> On 13 May 2020, at 04:12, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > The meaning of probability and the origin of the Born rule has been seem as > one of the outstanding problems for Everettian quantum theory. Attempts by > Carroll and Sebens, and Zurek to derive the Born rule have considered > probability

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 12:30:44 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > In any case though, I don't see the form of the Born rule as something > problematic. It's getting from counting branches to probabilities. Once > you assume there is a probability measure, you're pretty much forced to the

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 3:30 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 5/12/2020 10:08 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 2:06 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> > Consequently,

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On 5/12/2020 10:08 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 2:06 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 5/12/2020 7:12 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > If we now turn our attention to the quantum case, we have a > measurement

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 2:06 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 5/12/2020 7:12 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > If we now turn our attention to the quantum case, we have a > > measurement (or sequence of measurements) on a binary quantum state > >

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On 5/12/2020 7:12 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: The meaning of probability and the origin of the Born rule has been seem as one of the outstanding problems for Everettian quantum theory. Attempts by Carroll and Sebens, and Zurek to derive the Born rule have considered probability in terms of the