Have you looked at the Minimal Modal Interpretation due to Barandes and
Kagan: arxiv1405.6754 and arxiv1405.6755. They claim to derive the Born
rule as a consequence of decoherence and their take on MWI is:
Seen from this perspective, we can also better understand why it is so
challenging [68] to make sense of a many-worlds-type interpretation as
an ontologically and epistemologically reasonable interpretation of
quantum theory: Attempting to do so leads to as much metaphysical
difficulty as trying to make sense of the Lorenz gauge of Maxwell
electromagnetism as an “ontologically correct interpretation” of the
Maxwell theory.10 Hence, taking a lesson from classical gauge theories,
we propose instead regarding many-worlds-type interpretations as merely
a convenient mathematical tool—a particular “gauge choice”—for
establishing definitively that a given “unitary-gauge” interpretation of
quantum theory like our own is ultimately consistent with locality and
Lorentz invariance.
Brent
On 11/17/2024 4:48 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 11:35 AM Russell Standish
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 11:14:16AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> But there are no branches to be "equally real". You are fond of
calling sound
> arguments "non sequitur".
If the arguments were sound, I would not call them non-sequitur. There
is the possibility I missed something you consider obvious, but in
that case, I just ask you to dig deeper to join the dots.
The epistemic interpretation says that the wave function is merely a
summary of our knowledge of the physical situation. And it gives the
probabilities for various future outcomes. There are no "branches", so
there is nothing to be "equally real".
> Your claim that all branches are equally real is
> indeed a non sequitur, in that it does not follow from anything
at all.
Indeed. As is that there is only a single reality. But one is
simpler than
the other. A lot of people get Occam's razor wrong here.
There is only one reality, and a set of probabilities for future
outcomes. The simplest solution is that the so-called "other worlds"
do not exist. They are just a figment of your imagination. I know that
your starting point is that "everything exists" is simpler than any
other proposition. But if you do not start from there, you can see
that this position is indeed otiose.
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLR29b8r9Ky4DRcrv4G%3Dij8S5-e1%3DNdcg_31WfDu7pr5ZA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLR29b8r9Ky4DRcrv4G%3Dij8S5-e1%3DNdcg_31WfDu7pr5ZA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5295528e-5e51-4c13-90f3-ff265aa07a54%40gmail.com.
