Many-Worlds, Deriving the Born Rule?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on Wallace's attempt to derive the Born rule using game-theoretic arguments and decoherence. Critics argue that Wallace's reliance on decoherence assumes the Born rule, suggesting a circular argument. The conversation explores the implications of Gleason's theorem, which states that the only probability measure in quantum mechanics must align with the Born rule, raising questions about the necessity of probabilities in a deterministic framework like MWI. Participants debate the role of irreversibility in connecting quantum amplitudes to classical outcomes, emphasizing that the interpretation of quantum states and their probabilities remains a contentious issue. Overall, the dialogue highlights ongoing debates regarding the foundations of quantum mechanics and the interpretation of probabilities within the many-worlds framework.
  • #61
bhobba said:
You misunderstand. No interpretation is wrong since none can be proven or disproven by experiment. Until that is the case all are equally valid. The choice of one over the other is purely based on its appeal to you.
I agree completely, and this is a good place to close the discussion. Everyone has had a chance to plug their favorite interpretation, and there is no way to objectively do anything else.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 174 ·
6
Replies
174
Views
14K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 321 ·
11
Replies
321
Views
21K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
8K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K