On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 8:56 AM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2023, 4:40 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I don't think the Born rule is implied by MWI; but it's already known to >> be the only rational way to define a probability measure on a Hilbert space >> (Gleason's theorem). So in a sense it's implicit in QM regardless of >> interpretation. >> >> QBism, which is a version of CI+decoherence is at least as rational as >> MWI. I think the proper measure of an interpretation is whether they >> suggest improvements and experiments. MWI may be better in that respect. >> > > QBism, like other non-realist theories, can't account for the > effectiveness of quantum computers (unless one believes that non-real > things can have real, detectable effects (like producing the solution to > factoring a large semiprime)). But if you are realist about the wave > function, then you are dealing with MW, not QBism. > You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding one apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples. Bruce -- 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/CAFxXSLSBGXLnjeC26cR1FsFYPXmsXFmD2H4%3DKviTq19USc51gg%40mail.gmail.com.
