On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 9:47 AM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 11/15/2024 8:28 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > > You need to assume something like the Kolmogorov axioms of > probability anyway, but these are by and large definitional. > > For the rest, the Gleason theorem really does the heavy lifting. > > > But one somehow has to relate the amplitudes of the wave function basis > vectors > to the probabilities. And since the Schrodinger equation is deterministic, > introducing a probability interpretation is problematic. > > > I never followed that line of argument. I know you've raised this > multiple times over the years, but it made little sense to me. > > For example - in classical statistical physics, the connection between > entropy and the classical microstate is statistical in nature. The > assumed deterministic nature of classical microphysics does not > prevent a probabilistic interpretation of the macrophysics. > > It does not prevent a probabilistic interpretation, but it does not give one either. You have assumed statistical physics, which introduces a large dose of probability theory. That does not come from the deterministic theory -- you have to introduce it from elsewhere. So with quantum mechanics. The wave function, being deterministic, does not have a probabilistic interpretation until you introduce one from elsewhere. 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/CAFxXSLT9r_fHWuN3f4GNEtJ%2BHJNE%3DSY1komfDz619rrSEEHF1g%40mail.gmail.com.
