“(1) “First, what about the probabilities of the transition between different worlds or states?” Zero; you can’t transition between different universes.”

Here is what I was trying to say. Say that I start in state A, and in a very short time either make a certain observation (state B) or not (state C). OC, I cannot make a transition between states B and C, but don’t I make one between state A and either state B or state C?

“If you believe in the many worlds interpretation, then the probabilities CAN be interpreted classically, and then there’s nothing weird about the probabilities at all. See for example my initial work on the subject: http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3970”

Thanks for the reference. 🙂

Min

]]>(1) “First, what about the probabilities of the transition between different worlds or states?” Zero; you can’t transition between different universes.

(2) In the second case, you bring up the “measurement problem” which has remained an area of research for years now, and still is not 100% settled. What are the probabilities referring to? You’re correct in saying that one explanation is that there are three worlds of one kind, and one of another. But that doesn’t account for Born’s rule (that the probability is identically the square of the modulus of the inner product of the initial and final state vectors). Which is to say, it’s rather technical. However, your comment “But QM probabilities are not ordinary probabilities” is not quite right. If you believe in the many worlds interpretation, then the probabilities CAN be interpreted classically, and then there’s nothing weird about the probabilities at all. See for example my initial work on the subject: http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3970

In my opinion, the only reason quantum mechanical probabilities are “weird” is that people jump through hoops and make up all kinds of nonsense in order to AVOID the simplest and most elegant interpretation, which is just that there are many universes.

I am unaware of any official definition of what “entity” is or how that differs from an “axiom”. Philosophy isn’t like science; every philosopher defines the terms differently than any other. All that matters is MY definition, which is to say that an axiom IS an entity. Which is to say that TO ME, less axioms is more elegant than less “entities” whatever that means. If I take your criticism seriously then I’d have to doubt the existence of trillions of stars, since a single star (our sun) is much simpler.

]]>Edit: I left out a sentence after the statements about copies. I meant to say something like this, “But the claim is nothing like that.”

]]>Old Bill is rolling over in his graves. Occam’s razor does not reduce axioms, but entities.

]]>