vitaly comments on Collapse Postulates - Less Wrong

21 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 09 May 2008 07:49AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (60)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: vitaly 18 April 2013 02:02:27AM 0 points [-]

What about treating the collapse as the Bayesian probabilities update in light of the measurement (new evidence)?

Comment author: hairyfigment 18 April 2013 02:14:48AM 0 points [-]

I think Bell's theorem rules out exactly this reading. Unless you just redefine probability to include all the math of QM, but I feel inclined to call that a vile heresy.

Comment author: PrawnOfFate 18 April 2013 02:20:17AM 0 points [-]

Dropping the Bayes, subjective interpretations of collapse as receipt of information are not ruled out.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 17 September 2015 11:21:13PM *  0 points [-]

There are lots of thought experiments and actual experiments that suggest this view doesn't work. "PBR" is the one that springs to mind. Some people still support this view, but I've never seen any of them straightforwardly state what they think the underly reallity (that the amplitudes are supposed to represent beliefs about) actually is.