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.

Luke_A_Somers comments on Open thread, August 5-11, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: David_Gerard 05 August 2013 06:50AM

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

Comments (307)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 12 August 2013 02:10:27PM *  1 point [-]

Hold on a moment. What ladder is being kicked away here?

We've got observed probabilities. They're the experimental results, the basis of the theory. The theory then explains this in terms of indexical ignorance (thanks, RobbBB). I don't see a kicked ladder. Not every observed phenomenon needs a special law of nature to make it so.

Instead of specially postulating the Born Probabilities, elevating them to the status of a law of nature, we use it to label parts of the universe in much the same way as we notice, say, hydrogen or iron atoms - 'oh, look, there's that thing again'. In this case, it's the way that sometimes, components of the wavefunction propagate such that different segments won't be interfering with each other coherently (or in any sane basis, at all).

Also, about density matrices - what's the problem? We're still allowed to not know things and have subjective probabilities, even in MWI. Nothing in it suggests otherwise.