On 2/26/2015 3:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 February 2015 at 10:01, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:MWI predicts the same as QM+collapse.Only because it assumes the Born rule applies to give a probability interpretation to the density matrix. But Everettista's either ignore the need for the Born rule or they suppose it can be derived from the SWE (although all attempts have fallen short).This is an important point. Do /any/ interpretations explain the Born rule? If so, that would be a reason to prefer them to the MWI.
Gleason's theorem says the Born rule is the only consistent way to assign probabilities to states in Hilbert space (showing Born had good intuition). So if you can justify placing a measure on the multiple worlds it has to be Born's rule. The problem seems to be that branch counting doesn't make sense unless the number of branches are infinite. But if they're infinite it's not clear how to define the measure. Perhaps taking the limit of branch counting as the number of UD threads goes to infinity would work, but that seems non-Platonic since it would rely the threads coming into existence as on a concrete UD.
This is separate (I think) from the basis problem. Under a computationalist theory of mind it would seem that you need to define bases with eigenvectors like, "I see the needle pointing up." But we only know (approximately) how to define eigenvectors for the needle.
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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
