On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 03:47:27PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 11/15/2024 8:28 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 03:08:03PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 2:41 PM Russell Standish > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't think it requires this assumption. In fact "physically > real" > is a rather nebulous concept anyway. > > > If you want the 'other worlds' to be physically real, then the > original wave > function must be physically real. > > That's a non-sequitur. The 'other worlds' are as real as this one. The > reality of the wave function doesn't enter into it. > > > > > and it also has to > > make some assumptions about probability that are equivalent to > just > assuming > > the Born Rule. So the idea that it does not make any further > assumptions > beyond > > the Schrodinger equation is something of a pipe dream. > > > > 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. On your > line of argument, you'd need to reject Boltzmann's H-theorem. > > I'm not sure what you mean by "reject", but derivation of the H-theorem by > Boltzmann depended on the assumption that collision parameters are > uncorrelated, which made the derivation effectively circular. A common > problem > in derivations of the Born rule. >
I understood that the Boltsmann's Stosszahlanzatz was pretty much equivalent to assuming ergodicity, which of course doesn't always hold in physical systems. But why does that make the derivation circular? A system is either egodic or not, and if it is, then the H-theorem follows. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders [email protected] http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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/Z89-CSp__HJVPYhp%40zen.
