You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Mitchell_Porter comments on Timeless Physics Question - Less Wrong Discussion

-5 Post author: DanielLC 28 April 2012 08:33PM

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

Comments (30)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 29 April 2012 01:42:54AM *  0 points [-]

Are you trying to explain the Born rule, by producing a strictly real-valued superposition of universe-wavefunctions, which therefore looks more like an ordinary probability distribution?

ETA: I have a downvote, I don't know why. My very next observation would be that you would still have to square these real-valued amplitudes in order to get the probabilities, possibly followed by a discussion of the prospects for doing QM over algebraic fields other than R and C, and whether this changes anything.

Comment author: DanielLC 30 April 2012 03:08:28AM -1 points [-]

Are you trying to explain the Born rule

No. I just figure that real numbers are simpler than complex numbers.