= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
EHeller comments on How do you tell proto-science from pseudo-science? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (88)
This is a misconception. Many worlds has one fewer postulate then Copenhagen quantum, so there are operations you can do in Copenhagen that don't make sense in Everettian quantum (measurement as a projection operator). Most of the physicist I know who object to many worlds object that it doesn't have enough structure in the postulates to actually get predictions out.
Most interpretations are similar- they remove or introduce other postulates. Consistent histories, for instance, has a consistency operator that you wouldn't use in another formulation.
The complaint is that MWI is not complete enough to give a satisfactory interpretation for the Born rule. Nevertheless, those who support MWI do believe that Born rule is essentially accurate.
Sure, its obvious empirically.
The question is- can you do without the measurement postulate and recover the Born rule. If you can't, then Everett's interpretation doesn't work, you still have an ugly measurement postulate grafted on to the unitary theory, and you gain no elegance.