A formal proof of the Born rule from decision-theoretic assumptions · HackerPapers discussions

A formal proof of the Born rule from decision-theoretic assumptions — mentioned by FeepingCreature

Fri, 08 Jan 2021 10:59:19 GMT

I believe in Many-Worlds, the update step falls out of decoherence "for free." Because you are also in superposition after the measurement, the "you have measured 1" part of your wavefunction of course measures amplitude 1. That doesn't give you the Born rule though - I believe there's some attempts to get it out of game theory [1], where they show that given sufficiently long timespans, "almost every" worldline has a history with quantum measurements whose distribution matches the Born probabilities. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.2718

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A formal proof of the Born rule from decision-theoretic assumptions — mentioned by lisper

Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:32:08 GMT

Here's a blog post I wrote about this recently: http://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-wor... The TL;DR is that the critics are correct. Deriving the Born rule begs the question because it makes an unjustified assumption (branching indifference) and also introduces an "invisible pink unicorn", i.e. a concept that, according to the theory, has physical significance but cannot be measured. In the case of MWI that concept is branch weights. [UPDATE] The critique I wrote is based on Wallace (https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.2718). Carroll's argument appears to be somewhat different.…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.