> On 4/28/2022 10:45 AM, John Clark wrote: > > Exactly what axiom would that be? It can't be the Born rule because that > is not an axiom, that is an experimentaly derived fact. > > If I take some experimental result as granted, then it is an axiom, in my system. If you think we need to be more subtle, I propose that we adopt some qualitative principle (e.g., see below) as a practical assessment rather than as a formal assumption, and so we introduce "FAPP" (corrected as "for a practical purpose"). In my proposal I adopt "workability of QM".
On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 12:07:08 AM UTC+3 [email protected] wrote: > It was a guess by Born. If you want a measure on Hilbert space that > satisfies Kolmogrov's axioms of probability it must be Born's rule. The > axiom could be, "QM measurement results are probabilistic." > We also need some additional assumption, For Gleason, it was "non-contextuality of measurements". I have seen others. I think that it is enough to assume "equal measures imply equal probabilities", but I do not remember seeing this claim before. (I am unsure about that.) George K. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f8754d32-c21c-41b2-bbf6-d2d3171a0480n%40googlegroups.com.
