Thanks for the Tegmark link

[Gary Oberbrunner]

Whoever it was (LizR?) who posted the Tegmark link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC0zHIf2Gkw from the Oxford-Cambridge Cosmology and Quantum Foundations series last year, thanks!  I just got around to watching it, and boy I wish I'd been there!

He repeated the straw poll of "favorite interpretations of QM"; MWI was in first place (as in 2010) except for "unknown" which was still in the lead by a wide margin.  Not that this matters, of course, but as it gets more mainstream more eyes and minds can't but help.

And overall the lecture was quite good, though basic for some on this list.  Interesting insight on probability and deriving Born's rule without QM.

--
Gary

[Russell Standish]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 08:54:11PM -0400, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
>
> And overall the lecture was quite good, though basic for some on this list.
> Interesting insight on probability and deriving Born's rule without QM.
>

I had some quibbles with his Born rule work when I read it a few years
ago. Something about getting out what you put in. But if I ever
revisit the Born rule, I'm sure to study his derivation again.

There seems to now be 3 approaches on the table for getting the Born
rule from classical probability

1. Gleason theorem
2. The one I outline in "Why Occams Razor"
3. Tegmark & Aguirre

It would be interesting to know what the relationship is between them
(if any).

Cheers

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Bruno Marchal]

On 25 Mar 2014, at 02:07, Russell Standish wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 08:54:11PM -0400, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
>>
>> And overall the lecture was quite good, though basic for some on
>> this list.
>> Interesting insight on probability and deriving Born's rule without
>> QM.
>>
>
> I had some quibbles with his Born rule work when I read it a few years
> ago. Something about getting out what you put in. But if I ever
> revisit the Born rule, I'm sure to study his derivation again.
>
> There seems to now be 3 approaches on the table for getting the Born
> rule from classical probability
>
> 1. Gleason theorem
> 2. The one I outline in "Why Occams Razor"
> 3. Tegmark & Aguirre
>
> It would be interesting to know what the relationship is between them
> (if any).

You might forget my favorite one :)
Of course the hope is that the logic of the comp observable is enough
quantum to apply Gleason theorem, or a Gleason-like theorem.

Best,

Bruno

>
> Cheers
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Fabric of Alternate Reality" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to foar+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to fo...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/