Re: "Naive Realism" and QM

From: Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:12:54 -0700

Russell Standish wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 04:30:21PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
>>Your point about the squared modulus is well taken. Just why
>>*probabilities* emerge from squared amplitudes, I couldn't
>>tell you. I'm not sure that anyone knows---as I recall, many
>>this is related to the basis problem of the MWI (though
>>Deutsch and others say that decoherence takes care of
>>everything, though).
>>
>>Lee
>
>
> This is simply the Born rule - I give a derivation of the Born rule in
> my paper "Why Occam's Razor". Some other people on this list have
> asserted prior derivations of the Born rule also, which wouldn't
> overly surprise me as its not that mysterious.
>
> Cheers



I've haven't read your derivation, but I've read quant-ph/0505059 by VAn Esch
which is a proof that the Born Rule is independent of Everett's MWI and cannot
be derived from it.

How do you avoid Van Esch's counter example.

Brent Meeker
Received on Sun Aug 21 2005 - 21:14:35 PDT