On 17-09-2019 13:32, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 8:43 PM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:51 AM Alan Grayson
<agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote:
_Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant
after the measurement occurs_
Because you can't explain exactly what is and what is not a
"measurement". And because tacking on complicated mathematical
wheels within wheels to make the wave function suddenly vanish would
not improve the theories ability to make observable predictions by
one bit and would do absolutely nothing except muzzle the
Schrödinger Equation which is virtually shouting at us about the
nature of reality. The Many Worlds theory didn't tack on all those
many worlds, if you take a bare bones approach to quantum mechanics
and add nothing not needed to explain observation those worlds come
naturally, they can't be avoided.
So why do all Everettians have to add so many additional assumptions
in order to pretend to get out the Born rule?
Simply assuming the special case of the Born rule that measuring a
system in an eigenstate of an observable will yield the eigenvalue of
that eigenstate with certainty, is enough. You can consider the case of
repeatedly preparing and measuring N copies of a system and then
consider the observable that corresponds to the frequency distribution
of the individual measurement outcomes in the limit of N to infinity.
The special case of the Born rule applied to observable for the
frequency distribution then implies the general Born rule.
Saibal
--
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 on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4707a062d82e24c48214c447322d1d2e%40zonnet.nl.
