On 2/21/2013 9:06 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:56 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:On 2/21/2013 7:10 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:Question: Why is the "derivation"* of the Born Rule in (Everett, 1957) not considered satisfactory**? *Everett shows that the amplitude-squared rule for subjective probability is the only measure consistent with an agreeable additivity condition.Gleason's theorem is to the same effect. But both start with the assumption that the wave-function amplitude determines the probability - and then they show it must be via the Born rule. OK, I see, thanks. I suppose then that the decision-theory derivation drops this assumption?
It doesn't make it explicitly, but I think it makes an equivalent assumption which is why the problem isn't regarded as solved.
Brent -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
