I Gleason's Theorem and the Measurement Problem

[PeterDonis]

Of course, I didn't claim that,

Yes, you did. That is what the transition you wrote down in post #11 is claiming, whether you want to admit it or not.

Once again, trying to discuss these issues with you is a waste of time because you refuse to be consistent.

I only claim that these probability (rates) is all that is relevant to describe all these experiments

What you wrote down in post #11 wasn't a probability. It was a definite transition between definite states.

Once again, you are shifting your ground whenever you are challenged, which makes having these discussions with you a waste of time.

 

[PeterDonis]

I try not to participate anymore in these discussions.

Apparently you couldn't keep this up for very long. You responded to @A. Neumaier only 24 minutes after you posted what I quoted above, and that subthread has now gone on for three days, at which point we are where I described in my last post.

I am closing this thread for moderation.

 

[bhobba]

As the person who asked for this thread, if someone was interested in the role Gleason plays in the formalism of QM, reviewing recent posts, it has deviated from the thread's purpose. I see no purpose in it continuing, and will remain closed.

Thanks
Bill