On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > it seems that for Maudlin MWi is essentially incoherent because it cannot > come to grips with a sensible account of probabilities. All attempts to > derive probabilities and the Born rule in MWI have been shown to be circular But Copenhagen is no better at deriving the Born Rule nor is any other quantum interpretation although Gleason's Theorem says that if the quantum wave function is related to probability then the square of the absolute value is the only one that doesn't produce contradictions. So if you're going to have a probability rule involving the wave function its got to be the Born Rule, the function cubed or anything else just won't do. But the wave function itself is 100% deterministic so why involve probability at all? I don't have a very good answer to that nor does anybody else , but the Many Worlds people have made a better stab at it than most: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7577 John K Clark -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
